D&D Wiki talk:Social Media

Scheduled

I have scheduled a post for Sept 26 at 7:30am to draw attention to the review process for the Houserule Magazine project articles. I am planning on pre-scheduling posts from now on, to cover for those days when nobody has any free time to post something on the page. Once I start doing that, I'll make a scheduling list so we can coordinate scheduled posts. That way the page won't randomly shout over itself if other things get scheduled. --Kydo (talk) 22:27, 25 September 2016 (MDT)

Out of ideas

I'm running out of fluff. I can't think of much else to try and draw attention to the wiki. I don't have time to browse around looking for great pages to feature on FB. Any ideas on how to try and get/keep people hyped? --Kydo (talk) 00:59, 10 October 2016 (MDT)

D&D Wiki Plays FRUA

So I'm going to like, make videos of me playing through the Realm campaign for Forgotten Realms Unlimited Adventures and I named the PCs after some of us (Grene Dragon, Sergeant Lion, Kydo, Marasmusine, Sir Sprinkles, Lord Lexington (aka me)). I'm wondering if we want to put the videos on the Facebook? AD&D/FRUA is kind of old, but it's something and it's played by a D&D Wiki user/admin and is D&D-related, so it fits, right? And the way the campaign is set up, I might have to make a couple more parties to play some of it, so I could even include the names of other users in the future, which they may or may not find neat.

So anyways, if you want to put them on the Facebook, let me know and I'll work it out :)--GamerAim (talk) 20:02, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Downloaded FRUA after you told me about it. This is awesome. Yes. Awesome. --Kydo (talk) 04:38, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Assuming that's a yes, I guess I'll just upload everything here because I don't have access to the Facebook thingy. If I need to upload the stuff elsewhere, let me know. There's even a nice screenshot in there :P--GamerAim (talk) 12:25, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and that video was of the REF5 Book of Lairs adventure "Skeletons" while the screenshot, IIRC, was from U1 The Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh. The Realm games 35 and 27 respectively. (I'm currently recording U1, but I'll upload it when ready.)--GamerAim (talk) 14:15, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Would you be willing to do voiceover for the videos? Also, I was planning on making a companion YouTube page to go with the FB page. That way, if the community makes any videos, we can share them through FB and generate attention through two different social media communities. That way your videos could all be put together into a YouTube playlist. --Kydo (talk) 19:46, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, I was thinking about making a how to edit the wiki tutorial video to add to the editing page. --Kydo (talk) 19:49, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I know that the lack of commentary probably makes it boring, so if you think no one would be interested in it, that's fine. I'm just doing it for fun anyway, maybe it could serve as a poorly-edited walkthrough, but I'm not comfortable doing a voiceover. Oh well, it was a nice idea :)--GamerAim (talk) 21:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Boring? Hardly! I just know that some people like commentary. (Personally, I mute let's plays with commentary) I was just curious. I definitely want to see this thing through. What do you think of uploading then to a D&D Wiki YouTube channel? --Kydo (talk) 21:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I can upload them there :)--GamerAim (talk) 11:31, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

This is an awesome idea I'm favor of, I already can't wait to watch and see if FRUA is as cool as promised. I'd be interested in also possibly contributing DnD/relatedgams Let's Plays, in the future. --SgtLion (talk) 12:21, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

OK, I made the channel. You can view it here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0mJTlipkcTg8WzXwb-wnyQ. We can do this one of two ways: Run it separately from the FB page and grant access to video producers on a per-need basis, or just give access to anyone involved in the FB project. Thoughts? Oh, also, I tried to upload a banner, but the minimum size requirements don't match the cropped portion for display, so I have no idea how to do it correctly. --Kydo (talk) 19:16, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh, also, in order to make the YouTube account, I had to make a new gmail for it. (I didn't want it directly connected to my personal account for hopefully obvious reasons.) They wouldn't let me just use my own email for security reasons I guess. I also had to give the wiki a gender and birthday, which was weird, because Google was worried that someone might try to catfish our wiki. XD Anyways, the point is, D&D Wiki now has an arbitrary gmail account. I was thinking maybe we could use that as the social media project group email? Then we wouldn't have to use our personal emails to invite users into the project. --Kydo (talk) 21:05, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't have access to the FB, so I'd still need access to the YouTube. Not really sure how this works. I could try to get a banner, if need be.--GamerAim (talk) 21:53, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Would it be easier for you to upload the videos (a drag-and-drop interface, easier than pie) and then share it on FB yourself? Or would you prefer to just do your videos and have us FB guys share it for you? --Kydo (talk) 22:21, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

If you give me access to whatever I need, I can do it myself :) --GamerAim (talk) 23:23, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Blargh, this is more trouble than I anticipated. Recording the videos is easy! But there's trouble with verification and junk. And apparently we can't upload more than 15 minutes to YouTube unless someone pops in their phone number to the account to verify it \o/ I'm just uploading them to Google Drive from now on, and if people find them, then whatever. Do what you will, I guess.

P.S. I hope you found that pair of nail clippers you were looking for (I assume that was you; I deleted the activity history and I think I stopped it from being recorded now).--GamerAim (talk) 13:54, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Ah. Well, I guess that means you won't mind me uploading them? Sorry I wasn't around to help during this. I didn't realize I'd forgotten to verify the account. Sorry about all of the complications! --Kydo (talk) 13:37, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't matter to me, but the account isn't verified, which means that the videos can't be uploaded. If you can solve this, that'd be nice.--GamerAim (talk) 13:57, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

This is weird. My computer is uploading the video right now, no problem... Ah, I see how to access the issue. It's verified and first video has been uploaded. --Kydo (talk) 12:36, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Uploaded the second episode as well, and set them both into a playlist. I was going to make a little introduction video, but my camera has decided that today is a good day to die. --Kydo (talk) 12:59, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I went ahead and edited the video descriptions and titles, adding some background information on the series and modules being adapted, and added some tags.--GamerAim (talk) 17:26, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Minor Historical Note

The page reads "but nobody seems to remember exactly who started it, or whether the initiative started here or on Facebook". It was I who started the page, way back when. Not a big deal but figured if it mattered I'd say such.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   17:53, 10 December 2017 (MST)

Thanks for the information. --Green Dragon (talk) 00:43, 11 December 2017 (MST)

This is a truth that I, too, remember. --SgtLion (talk) 04:29, 11 December 2017 (MST)

Facebook Page

I messaged the Facebook D&D Wiki Page requesting permissions to be an admin there. Not because I have more to offer the page than others but I’ve got an active interest in D&D Wiki and just in case others reach out to it, an active member is available. Any help, even a refusal, would be helpful. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 13:02, 1 September 2018 (MDT)

Hey, sorry, I've been out of it for a bit. Glad to see a new admin on the team! So, being involved in the Facebook page is actually kind of a lot of work. You wind up being the voice and face for a large group of people. The wiki has a reputation problem. The hobby culture's attitude toward homebrew and the wiki is changing, we aren't enemy number 1 any more, but there's still a significant number of people who go out of their way to badmouth our community, especially on facebook. In addition, whenever the wiki goes down, people contact the Facebook page for help, so you'll be fielding tech support questions to a certain extent. The wiki does go down semi-regularly, as I'm sure you've noticed already. I used to do weekly posts to try and drum up positive attention, but my life became a little distracting so I've been foundering on that for over a year. I'd be happy to hand over responsibility to someone who is willing to try their best to promote our community. But I don't really have power over that. (Or at least it doesn't seem as though I do) I believe Hooper is the one who has actual control over it. I think SgtLion also has access? --Kydo (talk) 22:22, 1 September 2018 (MDT)

I was asked to chime in. Though I created the page forever ago, I have not been an admin on it in years so my opinion would not be helpful. I'm too far removed from it's current operations.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   09:27, 2 September 2018 (MDT)

thank you both for your time. I’ve reached out to Jwguy for help since they’re listed on main page Facebook and SgtLion also said they’re the only admin for the Facebook page. I understand there may be a lot that comes with the Facebook page but I am certainly willing to promote the community . BigShotFancyMan (talk) 12:48, 2 September 2018 (MDT)

Sorry for the late response. I saw this while I was at work some time ago and intended to revisit it when I was at home, but forgot. At the moment, I've kind of ended up in charge of the facebook page, although I usually leave it to the editors who are enabled on the page, as far as running it. Since it seems like it has come down to this, I'll go ahead and add you. It can't hurt to have more people aboard. Ideally, I think everyone should be on the page just for communications' sake. --Jwguy (talk) 08:39, 12 September 2018 (MDT)

Wow! Awesome news to hear. Thanks for your help Jwguy. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 12:58, 12 September 2018 (MDT)

I don’t mean to pry or be a thorn-just want to mention I didn’t see an invite for the moderation team. I’m not sure if I’ve missed it or something happened and it didn’t get sent? I ‘unno, just letting you know. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 21:09, 3 October 2018 (MDT)

Hm. It says there's a pending invitation for you. I also responded to the direct message you had sent. You didn't see it? -Jwguy (talk) 21:19, 3 October 2018 (MDT)

Oh. discouraging. I did see the DM, but chose not to respond because I got the vibe to carry discussion here. I'll try to contact FB support why I haven't got that invite. Thanks! BigShotFancyMan (talk) 21:32, 3 October 2018 (MDT)

I sent it again. If it doesn't show up, let me know your email in the DMs and I'll send it there. -Jwguy (talk) 21:37, 3 October 2018 (MDT)

Many thanks Jwguy for entrusting me. I look forward to trying to draw people into our community and contribute. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 21:52, 3 October 2018 (MDT)

Discord Removal

I'd like to personally state that I believe the discord, as it currently exists, should be removed from this and all Dandwiki pages, and we ought to distance our site from it in every instance possible.

It has proven itself to be a cauldron of problems which bubble over, and end up splashing onto this site. We cannot, in good conscience, pretend that the behavior of our users in that discord does not reflect on our wiki when we all but consider it to be an extension of this website.

If the arguments over at GamerAim's RfA are correct, and the happenings on that discord are not relevant to this site, then, the reasonable course of action is to disassociate with it altogether rather than continue to reference it as our discord on both the Community Portal and our 'unofficial' discord on this page. It isn't relevant, and it is frankly not benefiting this site, as it is. --Jwguy (talk) 16:31, 3 October 2018 (MDT)

I'm gonna have to disagree. Being able to get help on writing/editing pages immediately through the Discord has been of immense help to me and has greatly improved my writing skills. It's too useful of a resource to just remove entirely. I think that there should be more heavily enforced rules on how people should speak in the Discord since drama has been occurring. At the very worst, we could just remove the casual and non-wiki-related channels, but that wouldn't be fun. EpicBoss99 (talk) 16:40, 3 October 2018 (MDT)

I don't think removing the casual channels is a good idea. IMO, that's the point of it. If people want to discuss D&D Wiki-specific things, D&D Wiki already exists :P It is nice to have them on Discord, I suppose (being I added them and all), but that was never intended to be the sole purpose of it. As you said, the point is to have fun :) I should note that the majority of drama took place prior to the restructuring of Discord which more heavily enforced rules in an effort to stamp out drama. The drama spilling out into my RfA is, sadly, mostly from before that time :/ But, regardless, that matter is largely resolved.--GamerAim (talk) 16:47, 3 October 2018 (MDT)

You are free to continue to corroborate with editors wherever you wish, regardless of the outcome of this proposal. The benefits you have gained, while wonderful, do not represent a benefit the discord brings to the site as a whole, however, nor is it appropriate that we continue to maintain this hands-on, hands-off relationship in regards to how we treat the discord. We cannot continue to pretend that the discord somehow is not relevant to our site while we broadcast it's invite code and refer its banned users to appeal on the wiki, and confuse people who enter it by pretending that it is beholden to all the same standards and rules as this site, when instead it is largely controlled by one person and those standards are not necessarily enforced.

Again, as it is, I do not think it does us any good service to continue to associate with it. --Jwguy (talk) 18:30, 3 October 2018 (MDT)

The Discord server was created solely to benefit the D&D Wiki community, but at this point the users in it have only fostered a toxic community that has spilled out onto D&D Wiki. There has indeed been disruptive behavior in and as a result of the Discord server, so maybe removing the link from here would put a stop to that? The server definitely got put into a bad spot where whenever it was treated as official, people complained, and when it was treated as unofficial, people complained. All it was ever intended to be was a place where D&D Wiki users - and others - can chat. As you said, D&D Wiki can't be responsible for off-site discord, but that discord has sadly spread :(

Anyhow, what do you consider to the the state of our Facebook, reddit and YouTube pages? Are they "official" communication channels for D&D Wiki and administrated as an extension of it? I never considered them or Discord as an extension of D&D Wiki, but I assume you do? How do other people feel about it?--GamerAim (talk) 16:47, 3 October 2018 (MDT)

I'm not going to hide my intentions, and I'm going to speak freely. I hope you understand that I don't mean this to harm you, but it is my honest opinion: I am more concerned with how it is administered in light of the problems that have spilled out of it and the fact that it bears the websites name and rules despite being governed largely at your whim, although that spilling out is also a problem.

As for your question, I can only speak for the facebook page, but as soon as it was picked up on Dandwiki and maintained as a joint venture, I started considering it official. When people come to that page asking for help or with questions, I consider every answer to be a formal one and personally I'd consider everyone who contributes to it to be acting in their capacity as an administrator here. Otherwise, what are we doing? Why are we representing a website on facebook when that facebook page technically doesn't represent the website? --Jwguy (talk) 18:30, 3 October 2018 (MDT)

I understand, and those concerns are valid. However, as I keep mentioning, the vast majority of the issues taken against me and my running of the Discord server led directly to me restructuring it to better integrate with D&D Wiki's policies and put formal constraints on the authority of all administrators, including me. Since then, I — like you with Facebook — have conducted myself as though it were an official communications channel, despite the pretense that it was not. The reason I've been so defensive is because it is no longer administered in the manner I am being accused of, nor has it been for awhile.

To answer your rhetorical question of, "what are we doing?" I only shared the Discord as a way for users to keep in touch when the Wiki wasn't working. It was first shared during a time of frequent technical issues. I never wanted it to be used for official business, just as a way for people to chat more informally than on D&D Wiki. It was not my original intention to represent D&D Wiki. This is why it initially used looser interpretation of D&D Wiki policy and was far less strict about user conduct - not just mine, but other users and administrators as well. I hope this helps explain some things?

P.S. I appreciate you not hiding your intentions. I am pleased that we can both be open :) --GamerAim (talk) 18:51, 3 October 2018 (MDT)

I think this is a reasonable proposal. Even though I was the one who originally added it to this page, I now think that as long as the Discord server remains unofficial, it might not be appropriate to list it on our social media page, as even though it's clearly marked as not official, people still get confused about it. — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 19:31, 3 October 2018 (MDT)

”would a rose by any other name smell as sweet?” We can’t stop people from gathering on a Discord server to discuss their passion and works on a website. You can distance yourself if you want, but if people still want a server to readily discuss wiki content with more features than the tavern offers, then they’re gonna do it. As much strife has been caused, I think better moderation would go a long way. Less absolutism would benefit the app. The wiki didn’t become what it is without speed bumps, the Discord server simply has a hurdle. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 21:00, 3 October 2018 (MDT)

Could there be a way to discuss policies for unofficial D&D Wiki channels, and as a community dealing with concensus implement our policies on the discord server? I think that if we can deal with the problems on discord, but keep its good side, no one would object. --Green Dragon (talk) 09:33, 12 October 2018 (MDT)

I think a simple change in ownership would go a long way toward improving the perception of the server's administration. Regardless of the way (GamerAim claims) it is currently run, the fact is that the server is seen as being governed mostly by him alone, as Jwguy talked about above. The first thought would be to give ownership to Green Dragon since he is the owner of the wiki, but I don't like that just because of his unfamiliarity with the platform, and I also dislike giving ownership to Marasmusine, the next most senior wiki admin on the server, for the same reason. The person I'd most like to see as owner is SgtLion, but he left the server and expressed a desire not to return. I believe Cotsu Malcior would be the best person to take the position of owner as they have consistently shown their neutrality in disputes that have arisen on and as a result of the server, and seems more concerned with keeping the server running smoothly, and minimizing the drama that occurs there, and the userbase's perception of them seems to align with that. This seems to be GamerAim's intention as well, but that's not how it's perceived by the userbase as far as I can tell, and from my point of view his actions seem to have caused more drama than it's prevented. The two best examples of this that I can think of are the banning of ConcealedWife, and of myself and Varkarrus, both times for what amounts to an interpersonal conflict.

I highly doubt this would completely eliminate the problems in and that come out of the Discord server, but I do believe that it would lessen the frequency and severity of the problems that do arise. — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 11:50, 12 October 2018 (MDT)

I agree with Geo in this regard. —ConcealedLight (talk) 05:50, 13 October 2018 (MDT)

I've personally no interest in us even condoning acknowledgement of the server's existence - The announcement channel is inevitably (and has been) an unfair lobbying platform for the biased Discord community, the admin channel is inevitably (and has been) an unfair source of conspiration on admin matters, and the last 9 months have shown we can't keep our personal Discord drama from spilling onto the wiki in a hundred different forms and making everything not-fun. The Discord server breeds far, far more charged vitriolic conflict than any collaboration. The issue is not the server ownership, nor is it the policy; It is the current community that lives there. As such, I'd argue it's almost certain that these issues will never be meaningfully addressed. --SgtLion (talk) 12:23, 12 October 2018 (MDT)

How would you best attempt to address these issues? — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 12:28, 12 October 2018 (MDT)

SgtLion beat me to the punch. In short, ownership is irrelevant. SgtLion and I have both drawn issue with the toxicity that the Discord server has bred in the community. You offer a solution, yes, but to a problem that does not exist. The problem with the server is not and has never been with me or how I "ran" the server. As BSFM says, the Discord server is inevitable. All we can do is roll with the punches and hope that the community figures itself out.

Furthermore, the "frequency and severity of the problems that do arise" is blown out of proportion. For the most part, the server experiences less drama now than it did before the restructuring that I have mentioned numerous times. I view this, combined with ConcealedWife's return to the server, as evidence that the community is healing, the events of my RfA notwithstanding.--GamerAim (talk) 12:41, 12 October 2018 (MDT)

To answer the question - With the current Discord community, I don't think said issues can be addressed, because the issues lies with the community there. Hence my opposition to allowing the thing to be acknowledged at all. --SgtLion (talk) 14:52, 12 October 2018 (MDT)

Re-engaging with this conversation, my opposition is both in regards to the lack of administrative oversight and server ownership issues mentioned above, and the fact that the issues that have gestated there over time, eventually until they exploded onto our wiki. The latter is symptomatic of the first, in my opinion. Take it as you will, but from what I can see, every single issue that has spilled over has stemmed from that issue. As SgtLion has brought up the concern that the discord has lended itself to bias and injustice, in terms of the administrative communications channels, that only gives more reason for either a complete restructuring in that regard, or complete and total disassociation. I say the latter is the proper way, especially given the contradiction that arises if we're going to continue along this path of pretending that impropriety in Discord is somehow not an issue for the wiki. --Jwguy (talk) 08:23, 15 October 2018 (MDT)

I am actively addressing negative elements in the server as they arise. As SgtLion has said, the community has become toxic. This was always the danger of Discord, which we warned against months ago. All that can really be done at this point is to try and steer users away from toxic behaviors and encourage discussion on D&D Wiki itself. That is a solution that I am devoted to and I believe, based on what I've seen so far, that it will work.--GamerAim (talk) 10:05, 13 October 2018 (MDT)

I'm a little confused here. Are we discussing the REMOVAL of the Discord, as in shutting it down, or just not advertising it on the wiki? EpicBoss99 (talk) 13:54, 13 October 2018 (MDT)

I think the latter, but the current consensus seems to be in favor of keeping the link on this page. The Discord situation is complicated, but as you said, it's a valuable resource to some users and GD seems to agree that we can keep it that way if we're careful about the actions we take to preserve that positivity :) --GamerAim (talk) 14:47, 14 October 2018 (MDT)

Considering the majority of input in this topic are to the contrary aside from EpicBoss99, BigShotFancyMan, albeit for different reasons, I'd hesitate to call that a consensus. At best, Green Dragon's seemed to indicate that perhaps there could be a way to salvage it, but almost none of the responses in that chain indicate belief that this necessarily can or should be done, at least not without major change. --Jwguy (talk) 08:23, 15 October 2018 (MDT)

I also support EpicBoss' and BSFM's sentiments, as you say for different reasons. GD, Geodude and CL seemed — to me — to think that removing the link isn't warranted. It was my understanding the link should stay because it's helpful and no one can stop people from using the server, so removing it might not be that beneficial. That said, I have no personal stake in keeping the link. I agree with SgtLion's sentiments that the community has become toxic from it. I'm not even the person who added the link, just so there's no confusion about that. In fact, I objected to it, but Green Dragon said it was okay. (I state this just so it's clear I'm not responsible for it being on this page and appearing official.) So, like I said, I personally don't care. I just don't think that removing it will control the damage at all.--GamerAim (talk) 10:44, 15 October 2018 (MDT)

First, off topic, it's an unappealing and a wrong mannerism to say "this person said" and "that person said". It's you writing your text, so trying to tie together other users into your words never comes off well. Normally, you should take what other users say, their judgments, and make it personaly yours.

Now, if we want to see who is for this link and who is against it, maybe a vote would be appropriate. It may also be appropriate to see where we stand on the servers "unofficial", "official", etc. status.

I see Discord building a community, but I also see extreme emotions surfacing that have no correlation to D&D Wiki. I agree that these emotions seem to spill over to D&D Wiki.

I understand that removing a link probably will change very little (honestly, how many of the discord users were directed there by this link? I guess only a small percentage). This is why I want to reform the tough edges on the Discord server. Is it possible to grant ownership of the server to multiple people, say all the admins?

The complete removal of the discord server, while problem solving, would likely be unsuccessful. I presume that the users on discord would not bow to this concensus, or it would reappear in much the same way. If we do end up voting, then this should appear there too. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:43, 17 October 2018 (MDT)

The way Discord is set up (the entire service, not just our server), only one person can be designated "owner" of a server. An "admin" designation already exists on our server, with the power to do most anything on the server, save adding and removing the admin role from others, kicking/banning other admins, or deleting the server, all of which can be done only by the server owner. The owner of a server is the only one with absolute power there. Perhaps someone could make an account on there named "wiki admins" or something, that all the admins have the password to, and designate that account as server owner? Or GA could just make you owner. — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 00:21, 18 October 2018 (MDT)

I'm not sure if you're directing your first point at me, but if so, I don't get it. It'd be redundant to rewrite what other people said just to say it myself. Whatever the case and whatever you meant by that, I guess a vote to decide if we keep the link on this page is appropriate. Is there a formal voting format we need to put up, or do you just go through and count votes from what people said in this thread? If the latter, put me down for removing the link; I didn't want it here in the first place and the arguments for removing it only reinforce that.--GamerAim (talk) 06:24, 18 October 2018 (MDT)

Its a formal vote, for a set period of time. Go ahead and set it up then. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:33, 24 October 2018 (MDT)

Vote For Removing the Link to Discord Server

This vote is to decide if we should remove links to Dicord servers from D&D Wiki on all D&D Wiki pages. Links would no longer be allowed. If you want it removed, vote Support. If you want it to stay, vote Oppose. If you want to be neutral, vote Neutral. If you want it discussed, vote Discussion. --GamerAim (talk) 06:45, 25 October 2018 (MDT)

Can we remember this about a ‘’link’’, not the server. ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 15:01, 25 October 2018 (MDT)

No discussion has taken place for several days, so I'm going to go ahead and close this vote. Per this vote, the server link will remain. — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 09:14, 3 November 2018 (MDT)

That makes sense. --Green Dragon (talk) 13:13, 3 November 2018 (MDT)

Consider this sentence as some rehash of further complaint, and throw in a hint of decrying, too. --SgtLion (talk) 13:45, 4 November 2018 (MST)

To end this vote, we need to archive and create a new entry on Template:News. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:13, 5 November 2018 (MST)

(3/5/1)

Discussion

Green Dragon: when you edited my above comment to say all D&D Wiki pages, does this include user pages? I am assuming no, but I'm not sure where else Discord server links are posted. Does it apply to the Tavern and non-user talk pages? I am guessing yes.--GamerAim (talk) 12:52, 25 October 2018 (MDT)

Support

• I've already said elsewhere this vote is pointless, but I did agree to vote. The whole Discord community will just come here and vote as much as they need to - At least I finally get how lobbying works. --SgtLion (talk) 13:00, 25 October 2018 (MDT)

• I am absolutely against the idea that D&D wiki should promote or be polluted by foreign interests. Quincy (talk) 14:40, 25 October 2018 (MDT)

• Purely from a conflict resolution standpoint, I support removing these links. Without allowing links to discord our hard stance will also tell users that if they are feeling threatened, harassed, discriminated against, etc on discord: that we don't endorse it. There have been multiple instances of conflicts that have arises on discord, and this is the way to curb the pollution spilling over onto D&D Wiki. I see this as a temporary solution. If we can vet discord at a later point, we should then remove the ban on links to the server. For now, this will resolve many problems. I also like the wiki format, and I don't use or understand all the benefits that users feel discord gives them. --Green Dragon (talk) 00:21, 26 October 2018 (MDT)

Oppose

• BigShot here! ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 08:06, 25 October 2018 (MDT)

• I'm gonna vote oppose too. It's way too helpful as a messaging platform, works great as a means to contact people instantly, and allows new users to immediately chat with D&D Homebrew experts without having to wait on a talk page for help or advice. Even though there were incidents on the discord and I don't really know what most of these incidents entailed, we're all human beings, and I think we can all just forgive and forget. I really don't want to see the discord fall in numbers and I definitely feel like we can all work together and make the discord something that everyone can enjoy! :) --EpicBoss99 (talk) 09:09, 25 October 2018 (MDT)

• I'm also going to oppose this. The Discord server is way too useful to distance from the site in this way. While a discussion page might be a place for formal, slow burning debates, the Discord server allows for casual and informal discussion of nearly anything on the wiki with nearly instantaneous feedback between parties. It also helps foster a sense of community on the wiki, as there's something reassuring about talking with other users in real-time as opposed to forum-style billboard posts. Of course, there is the Tavern chatroom, but compared to the Discord, it's severely limited in its scope. --ZarHakkar (talk) 13:24, 25 October 2018 (MDT)

• Absolutely going to oppose this. Right now the only option for communication is through user talk pages (which Suck and are not user friendly), and the tavern chat (which nobody uses because it sucks). If anything, the D&D wiki discord should be made official, but that's a vote for another time (I.e as soon as this one ends). Varkarrus (talk) 15:45, 25 October 2018 (MDT)
  • Pre-emptive response: I know I'm not a member of said discord at the moment, but I stand by what I said. I don't plan on rejoining that server unless its administration changes hands, or it becomes an official D&Dwiki server so that its administration can be held accountable. The latter isn't possible if the discord gets disavowed. Varkarrus (talk) 16:03, 25 October 2018 (MDT)

• As BSFM said, this vote is about the link, so I'm voting oppose. While I personally opposed the link being placed due to Green Dragon's opposition to an official Discord server (this is the reason it was never and is not official), Green Dragon said it was fine to include the link on this page. So, while I did waiver on this topic in the above discussion, if we're doing an official vote, then I believe it's my responsibility to uphold precedent.

The only reason for removing the link is to disassociate the Wiki from Discord, but as users like EpicBoss have pointed out, the Discord server is not inherently problematic. If there are problems in the Discord server, they can (and will) be dealt with there. If users have grievances over there and take it out over here, they should also be dealt with here. There's no sense in going back on a ruling just because some users tried to start drama on D&D Wiki; if users stir things up, we'll deal with them as we always have, regardless of what social media platforms motivate their actions.

Of course, if Quincy thinks that we should remove all social media links — and I'm not saying for sure that he does — then that's another matter entirely and one which I think would lend more credence to the removal of the server link.--GamerAim (talk) 19:10, 25 October 2018 (MDT)

• Oppose; discord server links should remain, although I am not a member of the discord server unless you have another platform for rapid communication and interaction the discord server is an invaluable tool. I would like to see it also made official, but that is a discussion for another time. -- Kildairem 02:12, 26 October 2018 (PST)

Neutral

• I'm on the fence here. As EpicBoss99 stated above, Discord is a useful tool for communication and collaboration, but as we've seen, there have been problems spilling out of it, and I'm not sure whether its usefulness outweighs its problems. — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 13:05, 25 October 2018 (MDT)

Based on my time on the Discord, I really don't think the problems are stemmed from the Discord. In fact, I've had nothing but positive experiences with the Discord, especially getting to know the users of D&DWiki better. Because it's a place where people chat instantly, it definitely seems like all the arguments and stuff begin in the discord. However, people are people. Removing the discord isn't going to get rid of the disagreements between users. Besides, there have been lengthy arguments and problems between users even before the discord's creation. Therefore, in my opinion, the discord's usefulness definitely outweighs its problems. I hope this helps in making your decision! :D
--EpicBoss99 (talk) 16:53, 25 October 2018 (MDT)

Vote for making an official D&Dwiki Discord Server

Whether by making the existing one official, or by creating a new one, this community needs an official D&Dwiki discord server. It will have multiple benefits

1) Fulfills the same needs as the Tavern Chatroom but in a much more user friendly way

2) Supports much faster discussion and responses, in a much easier format, than wiki discussion pages.

3) Will require the staff to be held accountable to the same policies that apply to the wiki itself

First, we need more information about this idea before any voting would take place. What is the structure? How would it be run? Why should an admin on D&D Wiki need to be held responsible for an external site? How do we link the two communities together? What forces effect each online community? --Green Dragon (talk) 08:11, 4 November 2018 (MST)

The structure of a hypothetical D&D wiki discord server can be run very similarly to the existing D&D wiki discord server, if not identically. Anyone who is a site admin can also choose to accept the responsibilities of being an admin on the discord as well, as is already the case. Alternatively, I could see some nominations for people to solely be a discord admin, if the case ever arises that the discord needs more moderation than the site, and a hypothetical candidate only wants responsibilities over the discord server.

"Linking the two communities together" relies on the fallacious assumption that the wiki and the discord are two separate communities. While some people may choose to not participate on the discord, both the discord and the wiki are largely made up of the same active users, both share the same moderation team, and both are held to the same rules and standards. Similarly, the discord isn't an "external site," but an extension of this one. The unofficial discord does have methods of doing this already, however: a rule is in place that your discord nickname must be the same as your D&D wiki username. It's not like anyone will join the discord who isn't interested in being a member of the wiki as well.

There is nothing unprecedented about any of this: numerous online communities choose to have a discord server as well to serve as an extension of their community, much like the tavern chatroom is for us. Varkarrus (talk) 08:27, 4 November 2018 (MST)

I've also been in some communities that had a Discord presence, and they worked pretty much the same way as both our Discord and the Tavern work: they're extensions, but they're separate. I have seen users banned from Discord but not the reddit, or banned from the forum but not the chatroom. I've seen users banned from a wiki and its chatroom for different durations, and users banned from a wiki's forum and chatroom but not the wiki. Furthermore, there are a couple of users in Discord who aren't active or even present on the Wiki. Not many, but there's some.

I don't know about GD, but what I'd like to know is what this actually means for D&D Wiki. As you said, nothing would change on the Discord end. What would making it official entail? It seems to me — and please correct me if I'm wrong — that you're expecting this vote to implicitly create new policies governing D&D Wiki users' conduct in real-time chat. This is a fallacious assumption because the officialism of the server is not what determines that. It is established precedent that even conduct in the Tavern is considered irrelevant outside of the Tavern. If that's what you'd like to challenge, you could start with a discussion (not a vote) to debate the merits of that idea. Otherwise, could you please outline how, as GD put it, "we link the two communities together?"--GamerAim (talk) 09:14, 4 November 2018 (MST)

It's not like this is the be-all end-all solution here. Making it official is the first step, making the policies that govern it is step 2. There's no point in even starting step 2 until step 1 is complete. At least, that's what I thought... Varkarrus 142.55.40.54 09:25, 6 November 2018 (MST)

It's fine; we rarely use votes, so even I feel unfamiliar with the system, despite reading the Wikipedia help pages on it. Like GD and SgtLion both said elsewhere, votes should be a last resort for implementation of ideas where there's no consensus; in other words, they're the last step in the process. I mean, you've seen how things went with Brexit, right? They voted to leave but it took years to even work out how that'd go :P GD does seem open to the idea, however, so you should definitely keep giving your thoughts on it! What you've come up with is a good start, IMO, and I'm sure you and other users can refine the idea into something more concrete :) --GamerAim (talk) 09:47, 6 November 2018 (MST)

Discussion

Eh, I'm going to go ahead and say it: #3 is not a good "benefit" for making an official Discord server and is inappropriate to list as one, in my opinion. The reason I say this is because it comes across as wanting to stretch the jurisdiction of D&D Wiki because someone you dislike has been naughty. As an analogy, why not make Papa John's the official pizza provider of D&D Wiki so that we can hold its staff accountable to the same policies that apply to D&D Wiki itself. Ignoring that a) all users are already held accountable in Discord, and b) the decision was already made that Tavern conduct cannot be held accountable outside of the Tavern (one of multiple rulings you appear to have been ignorant of in recent referendums), this "benefit" should be an effect of the change, not a benefit of it, for the reasons I gave above.--GamerAim (talk) 05:33, 4 November 2018 (MST)

Quite a topic of contention these days and I think I am ready to share my thoughts. I really would like an official discord channel. I do not think you can have an official discord channel and not link the behavior of users between the two. An official D&D Wiki Discord Server needs to uphold the values, morals, ethics, etc., etc, as the website. Honestly, its pretty poopy that it needs mentioning because the wiki at a fundamental level is be kind and respectful. If you don't, you'll be warned. Why we shouldn't want that to exist across the platforms...I unno.

If my tune sounds different that's because it is. Before when Wiki Discord is this unofficial thing, then I thought and felt each platform should handle their bizz separately. For them to work together and be unified, I think the policies should be equal. It is fairly simple to "mute" a user on Discord if they are banned on the wiki rather than kicking users from the server or dealing with that stuff.

An official server, in my opinion, also needs consistency. Unprecedented channel names changing, user name changes in flux, rules and policies inacted overnight without full discussion all create an unstable environment. I would suggest Discord server changes be discussed on the wiki proper website. It would keep GD in the loop amongst other users, regardless of their interest in the social app. I think it would also help curb discussion escalating too quickly out of hand. Just a thought *shrug*

There are issues about external thingz being used and I don't think we should police those things. We have external images on our site. "oh, but bsfm, those images are free" okay. good for them. bah. tis a rant I'll refrain from.

It's been mentioned the admin channel as this secret planning section where people plot the demise of the world occurs (exaggeration? sure.) and I think the channel should be deleted or made read only. Read only serves like other pages that only admins can edit on the wiki. So if admins want to discuss something amongst one another let it be shared much like any read only page on the wiki. This may have already occurred so I apologize if this unnecessary.

I also think the controversial, adult, NSFW, etc., etc., channel needs deleted. The wiki doesn't have a page that naturally breeds toxicity, hate, anguish and frankly that channel has done more harm to users than just me. I think it is a trap for people to think they can discuss things and then they are disciplined because a rule was broke. (truly irony)

I find this to be my thoughts in a "nutshell". I think there are other things that bug me about the current state hence my absence but I would oh so love to return. Hopefully it has been getting better. I look forward to a positive and healthy mobile chat program that doesn't cause stress. ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 22:15, 9 November 2018 (MST)

I actually agree with literally everything you just wrote. Any idea how we can spearhead this initiative, then? Varkarrus (talk) 22:22, 9 November 2018 (MST)

Sorry, but I don't :-( I think any feedback from my thoughts will help all of us move forward with this. Really happy you agree too! :-D ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 22:29, 9 November 2018 (MST)

While I think some issues you hold are unrepresentative of the actual state of the server, that also means that I have no problem with your solutions to them. As the "server owner" (and a D&D Wiki admin), I have always been willing to make changes solely in the interest of making users more comfortable. To be honest, I think this is a good spearhead. You gave concrete, specific instances of how and why both the server and D&D Wiki should benefit from the server being made official.

The external emotes are non-negotiable because I won't make any user — even if that user hasn't joined or spoken up about it yet — feel that they have to pay an external platform to get the same privileges as another user in an official D&D Wiki chatroom. All users should have feature-parity on Discord just as they do on D&D Wiki (with the exception of adminship, which is treated the same on Discord as it is on D&D Wiki). You mention that D&D Wiki has external images, but so does Discord, so everybody should be happy :)

Now that there's more details on how you want this to work, I can give some advice. First, do you want users to be held cross-accountable on Discord and D&D Wiki? I did initially create the server to be official and have always held myself and others to our high standards, so I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with this. But the current ruling from GD is that even conduct in the Tavern cannot be held accountable for outside of the Tavern. So the first step in this regard would be to create a discussion on changing this ruling and go from there. In the discussion, you should write out how it would work. Would infractions and punishment be applied universally (i.e. without exception) on a 1:1:1 basis? And would it only apply to conduct on official D&D Wiki channels? My problem with Vark's suggested implementation is that she seemed to want conduct in unofficial channels to be held accountable, which I think most people agreed was a gross violation of our jurisdiction and unfairly weighted to unofficial channels where more users knew each other; it would have, for example, held you accountable for conduct in unofficial Discord servers you shared with Vark, but wouldn't be able to hold Vark accountable for her conduct where we weren't aware of her presence. A more limited implementation that does not include, say, reddit's r/dnd and other unofficial channels, might be more accepted.

Wow, that was long! I think that's the biggest roadblock to what you want, so get that out of the way and everything else should be as easy as writing up a policy detailing what you wrote about. Of course we have to come to consensus on all this, but it's the start that counts :) --GamerAim (talk) 06:09, 10 November 2018 (MST)

1. Yes, I would want users held cross-accountable on Official D&D Wiki platforms.
2. I am not sure how much impact chat had when the Tavern was created. With the change of times and chat integral part of communities, perhaps rulings have changed.
3. I-I think universal application of discipline was what I communicated. I think it sounds more frightening then what it really is. Simply put, you can't be a jerk in one place and operate in another. Users will be expected to be polite, respectful, etc. or not participate on D&D Wiki thingz. Like, if you wouldn't put it on the wiki, don't put it on the Discord then. I 'unno, maybe easier said then done. ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 15:54, 10 November 2018 (MST)

You did communicate that; I was trying to communicate that you'd have to specify where exactly you want cross-accountability to be applied. I mention this because Vark's initial proposal was not specific enough, which is partly why it was shot down. The key here is to be as specific as possible, because GD (not to mention me, SgtLion and maybe others) are wary about doing this as-is, and details help us to go back and say, "this is how we agreed to implement it, so this is how we're conducting it." Does that make sense? If not, I'll try again tomorrow :) --GamerAim (talk) 17:14, 10 November 2018 (MST)

For the time being, Discord and D&D Wiki website. When, if, others means of communication become more prevalent then discussing those seems appropriate. I’m skeptical other things become a thing due to the website/Discord darn near everything necessary for the community. ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 18:10, 10 November 2018 (MST)

I think that this would work as a basic layover of our user conduct and user policies.

The next unanswered questions deal with its functionality. The external emojis are part of this. There are multiple functions on Discord that are not present with MediaWiki (and vise-versa). How do we verify a users identity across platforms? How would a user not be lured to just change their username? It would be bad to change your username to another users', break all sorts of warnings, and then get the wrong user on D&D Wiki banned. Also, there are pay-for features on discord (external emoji) that MediaWiki does not have. What policy are you intending that this is covered under? Since it doesn't exist for us, there is currently no policy for it. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:29, 11 November 2018 (MST)

If you feel impersonating another user on the discord server is likely, here's how I'd prevent that from happening. Simply make new users only able to access a single channel on the discord until they verify their username. Probably what this would involve is: you say what your D&Dwiki username is, a moderator confirms it by posting on your talk page, and if verified, your server nickname is changed to match the wiki username. There is an option in servers to disallow users from changing their own nicknames, so this is a possible option. GamerAim says he feels external emojis should not be allowed (there is a server option to prevent users from using them, too), but I feel this should be something put to a separate vote later, since a currently untallied overwhelming majority of everyone else feels that banning external emojis is not necessary. Varkarrus (talk) 00:14, 12 November 2018 (MST)

Vark's user verification policy is identical to the way I do things. Geodude did become lax in the policy and didn't ask for much in the way of verification, but I'm sure he'll straighten up; I didn't bring issue with it before because of the lack of officialism.

As you say, there's no policy covering it, so external emotes are banned. As an explanation of how they work, they just allow you to use emotes from other servers. If it was just, "users upload their own emotes," I might be fine with it (but probably not), but the fact it requires users to join other servers to gain the emotes seals the deal for me. A D&D Wiki Discord server should be, to the best of our ability, isolated from other Discord servers. It should be administrated as an extension of D&D Wiki, not as an extension of the Discord community. There are certain Nitro perks that I cannot remove which can be used by paying subscribers to customize themselves in our server; namely, custom ID numbers and animated avatars. As such, Nitro subscribers can avail themselves to that functionality without limit :) --GamerAim (talk) 06:12, 12 November 2018 (MST)

"users upload their own emotes" is actually how external emojis are largely handled. People create a personal server, upload their emojis there, and use them. If they see an emoji from a different server that they like, they can 'steal' it. Again though, that's a discussion / vote I'm gonna start after this discussion / vote ends (assuming the vote passes) Varkarrus (talk) 13:31, 12 November 2018 (MST)

Users making new servers as a workaround for unlimited external emotes is still using emotes from another server. It might be a personal server created solely for emotes, but it's still a server and it's one that we don't administrate. People are free to use their external emotes in other servers that allow it; even if I could stop them from doing so, I would not, because I don't care about their use in non-D&D Wiki servers. The fact is, those emotes are not from D&D Wiki and external emotes are a function administrated by servers. This is no different from usernames being server-specific, and just as we don't allow users free reign over their usernames, neither do we allow free reign over external emotes. Admittedly, there are a few holes in our username policy (namely, people who don't confirm their D&D Wiki username can use whatever username they like), but we can always fix those loopholes if necessary.--GamerAim (talk) 14:07, 12 November 2018 (MST)

As mentioned above, there already seems to be framework for verifying users to prevent account abuse. Regarding the emoji thing, I don't see any harmful/negative effects of allowing emojis. Certainly there are times I don't like them but that is the extent. I don't like them. I am not a proponent of not allowing things simply because of my preference. And in this case, I haven't heard anything negative about the emojis. Its been said,

I won't make any user — even if that user hasn't joined or spoken up about it yet — feel that they have to pay an external platform to get the same privileges as another user in an official D&D Wiki chatroom.

but really no one is making anyone do anything. No one is hurt by not paying for cosmetic feature in a chat room. It could be argued that people are hurt by not allowing it, since they DID spend money for a service that D&D Wiki won't allow. I think maybe it should be looked into why other communities don't allow them if they don't, or D&D Wiki chooses a different chat platform that won't restrict features people have paid for to support a service that the Wiki and its users are using. ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 07:55, 13 November 2018 (MST)

To answer the question directly though, I don't think extra policy is needed because if the external emojis are abusive, rude, insensitive then there is already the "don't be a jerk" policy and warnings could/should be done for similar inappropriate behavior. ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 07:59, 13 November 2018 (MST)

I don't see how something that discord offers as a pay-to-use service can be abusive, rude, or insensitive. I assume that the service has an idea of why they created these emojis. Do they have a detailed reason for using them?

So, we now know how policies would be enforced on discord, but how are they created? Where would the concensus take place, and what type of format would it use? How can multiple admins of the same position each effect the proceedings on discord, without having the server owner pull all the strings?

What is the position of a server owner, and how is it to be handled? --Green Dragon (talk) 09:13, 13 November 2018 (MST)

In my opinion, the only purpose the server owner position should have beyond that of an admin is to add and remove users from the admin role as appropriate. I have seen other servers fall apart because the server owner gave themselves veto power over the decisions of the rest of the moderation team's decisions and act like they're better than everyone else because they have a little crown next to their name, and I know that some users in our Discord feel or have felt that the current owner has behaved in a similar fashion to what I have described. It's not something that I want to get too into right now, but since GD asked about it I thought I'd just lightly touch on it.

Server policy should be decided through discussion and building consensus, as wiki policy is decided, and not by divine mandate from the owner or the admin team. Discussions about server policy should probably take place on the wiki, on this talk page. Discussion happens a lot faster on Discord than on the wiki, so having policy discussion take place here would make discussion easier to track and consensus clearer. — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 11:14, 13 November 2018 (MST)

Agreed. This is how the server has always been conducted, and I doubt that anything will change that :) --GamerAim (talk) 16:23, 13 November 2018 (MST)

First of all, "it's just cosmetics" doesn't work on me as an argument. If it's that inconsequential, then why is it so controversial? Secondly, D&D Wiki is not affiliated with Discord, regardless of whether we make the Discord server an official D&D Wiki channel of communication. I guess we're technically bound by their terms of use and all, but disallowing external emotes doesn't violate that. It's a permission that can be unchecked in the server settings. Discord itself allows for them to be disabled in servers, hence they are under the purview of each server and D&D Wiki is not affiliated with other servers. If users want to link external images, they can do it using the normal method, because paying Discord should not entitle anyone to special privileges in a server that is not affiliated with D&D Wiki. And again, I'm not stopping them from using external emotes in other servers, nor am I stopping them from using the other "cosmetic" benefits of Nitro that I mentioned.

But to answer GD directly, the server owner position means...nothing, really. All other admins have the same permissions as me and can make their own changes or undo mine. As you said on Quincy's RFA, your position as D&D Wiki owner isn't that meaningful. Also, if I'm reading your question on policy creation correctly, if Discord is bound by D&D Wiki policy, then policies should be decided on D&D Wiki, IMO. Not everyone is on Discord, so I think the Wiki should remain the place for deciding policy.--GamerAim (talk) 09:41, 13 November 2018 (MST)

I still think we should be saving the emoji discussion for afterwards. Discussing it is meaningless if the server isn't even official yet. Varkarrus (talk) 10:39, 13 November 2018 (MST)

I agree that this particularly discussion is not of immediate concern to making it official.--GamerAim (talk) 16:23, 13 November 2018 (MST)

My question actually was not just about external emoji, it was "The next unanswered questions deal with its functionality. The external emojis are part of this. There are multiple functions on Discord that are not present with MediaWiki (and vise-versa)." I now want to ask about undoing edits. This is something not on MediaWiki, and as a platform that focuses on constructive edits as one of its pillars, removing something for everybody to see seems very very suspicious. Was it harassment, belittling, or even racist? Where is the documentation for a structured investigation?

The server-owner analogy makes sense. How is conflict dealt with, and how can users use dispute resolution? --Green Dragon (talk) 23:35, 13 November 2018 (MST)

I updated my opposition vote to state that I oppose any action to make Discord an official communications channel until the external emotes dispute is resolved. Also, dispute my attempts to help other users in drafting new policies for it, I'd also like to declare that I am indefinitely opposed to cross-accountability for the reasons I've given before.

Moving to GD's next question, I've found no good answer to the problem of users and admins deleting or editing Discord replies. There's not documentation in place for such structured investigations. And before someone says, "you can take screenshots," keep in mind that even screenshots which aren't doctored don't always tell the full story. I recall Geodude had a potential solution to this, so hopefully he can chime in and solve this? :)

Finally, users can dispute resolution in the #help channel and/or by mentioning @admins. Conflict has been dealt with by following policy as interpreted by admins. The same as D&D Wiki.--GamerAim (talk) 05:57, 14 November 2018 (MST)

Sort of jumping back, I think the wiki serves as a beautiful place to discuss and create Discord policy.

The server owner, I think needs to be an observer more than participant or enforcer. Use the mods/admins that have the rights to do things unless they aren't around. This doesn't mean the owner can't act, but as sign of good faith and partiality, the owner could be as little hands on as possible with discipline and policy. In order to handle that, and not have a server owner pulling the strings, the owner needs to be trusted.

simple side note to address, the emoji-thing is such a point of controversy because there was a vote, the community spoke their wishes, and the owner ignored it because of preference consensus. In that regard, I find a divine mandate was made and the Discord server has not always been conducted the way the wiki has.

Like GA says, I cannot speak to their being a recorded history to be referenced. If Geodude knows something that can help, lets hear it! :)

I enjoy the questions Green Dragon. I don't think any one of us knows all the questions to ask. So while Discord may not be the answer through this process, maybe with the knowledge of what to look for the community can have something. ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 10:55, 14 November 2018 (MST)

I was previously warned and then banned from the Discord server, and two of those warnings were later removed because the offending messages had been deleted, leaving no evidence of wrongdoing (sidenote, I'm still a tad salty over it because I don't think it was justified, but that's in the past now so it's not a huge deal). The last time a user had to be warned on the Discord, a screenshot of the offending message was taken. Messages before and after the offending message weren't included in the screenshot because context wasn't necessary to understand why the user was warned; the message was worthy of a warning both in and out of context, in my opinion. I don't recall whether the original message was deleted or not.

I think screenshotting the offending message when a user is warned is probably the best course of action here. Users are allowed to delete their own messages on Discord, and unlike when a moderator deletes another user's post, no record of it is made in the moderation log. Even when an admin deletes another user's message, the moderation log doesn't say what that message contained, only that it was deleted. — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 12:12, 14 November 2018 (MST)

I disagree wholeheartedly with BSFM. Server ownership shouldn't ever be a consideration when acting. It should convey neither greater nor lesser authority. I, for one, have always been of the opinion that if the server owner abused that position, people would leave the server, so why abuse the power just to have power over no one? Seems pointless to me.

To provide the whole story behind external emotes, the permission was disabled immediately after it was used the first time because I never had the intention of allowing them for the well-founded reasons I have already given, but because no one had been able to use them before, there was an oversight that allowed them to be used for months before it was ever noticed. So, I noticed it and disabled the permission, and was then bullied and coerced into allowing them for some more months, before I decided to block them again. To repeat: they were only allowed because I was bullied and coerced into allowing them, against consensus. Contrary to what other users have tried to push, the vote did not determine consensus. There was simply better arguments against their use than for them. All of the complaints that I acted against consensus are retaliation against the consensus not being what they wanted. And I refuse to bend to their abuses like I did before. Any drama that has caused is not of my own fault.

Moving on, Geodude looked into it today and determined that there is no way to prevent users from deleting or editing their own messages. The message Geodude mentions for the last warning was not deleted by me, as I have decided to stop deleting any messages because it unintentionally led to the destruction of evidence; this is the main reason Geodude's warnings were revoked as per consensus. The message in question was screencapped in case the user deleted it after the fact, and obviously another admin witnessed it. I think it's clear that Discord most definitely does not work like D&D Wiki and in some ways attempting to administrate it like D&D Wiki is impossible.--GamerAim (talk) 14:18, 14 November 2018 (MST)

There is a discord bot that logs deleted / edited messages: https://www.dynobot.net/ Varkarrus (talk) 14:53, 14 November 2018 (MST)

We already had Dynobot on the server, but didn't really have anything set up because none of us really knew how it worked. I looked into it and have now set up Dynobot to log edited and deleted messages in an admin-only channel. — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 17:39, 14 November 2018 (MST)

Oh snap! :o great idea Vark and kudos Geo for setting it up \o/ ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 18:08, 14 November 2018 (MST)

What is the consensus over server ownership? If we are aiming to make a discord server that mimics the practices and policies of the wiki, I feel a bureaucrat should have such a role as they're hierarchically the same position. —ConcealedLight (talk) 06:15, 17 November 2018 (MST)

There is no consensus on that, and there won't be for awhile since there's not even consensus over whether there's going to be an official Discord server, much less if that server would be created anew (thereby splitting the D&D Wiki community further) or just reuse the one I already made (the reasonable choice). However, the consensus does seem to be (based on everyone who talked about it agreeing) that server ownership doesn't really matter. Maybe next week I can draft a more orderly referendum for policies to get a better idea where the community stands on each issue.--GamerAim (talk) 07:46, 17 November 2018 (MST)

Support

I, of course, support. For reasons summed above, and in the previous vote to not delete the link. Varkarrus (talk) 23:45, 3 November 2018 (MDT)

I’d like something more official yes. ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 19:00, 10 November 2018 (MST)

I support the creation of a new, drama restricted, group run discord server. I would love to use the platform as I feel it is user friendly and gives the wiki far more communication options. However I only support this if it is run by the community and not by one selected individual. I feel as though a panel of administrators (maybe 3 or so) should be chosen to run the discord and thus eliminate it becoming to dictatorially run. -- Cotsu Malcior (talk) 07:25, 22 November 2018 (MST)

I too support the creation of a *new* discord server. A fresh slate would do the community well. ConcealedWife (talk) 14:44, 3 December 2018 (MST)

Oppose

• I'm opposing this vote for the simple reason that GD said he doesn't want an official Discord server, and that was his decision. Despite what some may think, the lack of an "official" Discord server is not some nefarious loophole which I put in place to abuse innocent users. I tried to make it official, GD said no, and that was that. So, I think this vote is invalid on the basis of no authority to enact the change.

That said, I'm not necessarily opposed to it on principle because nothing would need to change whatsoever; the #adult-theme channel would still be exempt from most rules, #casual would still have a lax atmosphere/administration, and drama would still be disallowed. And of course, I'd get the sweet credit and vindication for having the idea in the first place :)

Though, to play devil's advocate, I'd like to refute the first two benefits (the third one is irrelevant and/or inappropriate as a benefit, so I won't bother refuting it, but can try to explain why if anyone asks): Discord is a third-party website that requires users to make a second account. The server has a lot of channels, which can be confusing. It might be more versatile and functional, but I wouldn't call it more user-friendly. Secondly, the Tavern also fulfills the benefit of being real-time, and the Discord server has actually been less active than the Wiki the past week or two. In fact, it's been less active than the Tavern.--GamerAim (talk) 05:22, 4 November 2018 (MST)

I'm updating my opposition to state that I oppose this vote until such time as it is formally agreed-upon to keep in place the ban on external emotes.--GamerAim (talk) 05:49, 14 November 2018 (MST)

There should absolutely be a discussion about it, and external emotes should be allowed or not allowed based on the result of that discussion and the consensus reached. — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 09:06, 14 November 2018 (MST)

Considering that the discussion for external emotes being banned took place on Discord itself, I'm not wondering if all Discord-specific policies must go back through discussion on D&D Wiki? My original meaning when I said that D&D Wiki policy should be discussed on D&D Wiki, not Discord, was for policies that relate to D&D Wiki or both. I hadn't considered if Discord-specific policies should be discussed solely on D&D Wiki. I think that before anything is made official, we should make sure that any policies currently in place are either discussed on D&D Wiki or otherwise rule that existing Discord-specific policies will be maintained. I don't want to make it official only to have more discussions over the legitimacy of policies (like the 3 month limit on warnings).--GamerAim (talk) 14:18, 14 November 2018 (MST)

I'm going to be blunt here. Please don't take this personally, because it's not my intention to attack you or anything, but my point of view on the emotes issue is thus: There was a discussion about external emotes on Discord itself, and 10-ish then-active users voiced their support to allow external emotes in the server, and I remember you being the only person arguing against them. A consensus was reached, and emotes were allowed for a couple months before you disabled them again without discussing it first based on a conversation you had with SgtLion via private message, because, and I quote, you "didn't view the consensus as legitimate." This then caused a huge argument which resulted in me wheel warring with you over the emotes permission before leaving the server, along with Guy. I felt (and still feel) that you used your position as server owner to enforce your particular viewpoint on the rest of the server's members and break, subvert, and ignore consensus when it pleases you, and your claims that consensus was in fact against allowing external emotes has only solidified my position. One user's opinion is not consensus, even (rather, especially) if that one person is an admin or the owner. I agree that it sounds really silly to get this worked up over emoji, but I voice my support for allowing EEs not because of the emoji themselves (I can't use them anyway as I don't have a premium account) but because I wish for the community's consensus to be adhered to. I believe that external emotes should be allowed, as was decided by the community.

I want to see the issue discussed again on the wiki proper because it would help solidify consensus on this issue, and make it clearer as to what the consensus actually is, which I'm under the impression that some users are confused about. Discussion moves a lot faster on Discord than it does on the wiki, and it's a huge pain in the butt to go back and look for months-old discussion on an issue. Discussing this issue on the wiki would make it a lot easier for people to point to the discussion and say "this is what the consensus was" when the argument inevitably pops up again, regardless of on which side of the debate consensus falls, and the person/faction that "lost" the debate can't insist that consensus was on their side (again, regardless of which side of the debate that is). — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 21:05, 14 November 2018 (MST)

I find myself in agreement with geo in regards to this and to be frank, don't feel comfortable allowing such a user to handle an unofficial server let alone an official one. —ConcealedLight (talk) 06:15, 17 November 2018 (MST)

I completely agree with Geo. I feel that consensus has been ignored and ownership has been abused in this discord in the past. As such I feel that a new discord should be created with GD as the owner. ConcealedWife (talk) 14:44, 3 December 2018 (MST)

• I'm open to new ideas, but as GD and I said, this needs structuring at least. --SgtLion (talk) 09:53, 4 November 2018 (MST)

Shouldn't the structuring come after we know whether or not we're gonna go ahead with doing it? Or would it be better to start a discussion elsewhere, and when that discussion has ended retry the vote? I assumed the former made more sense, but if I'm wrong that's okay. Varkarrus 142.55.40.54 09:25, 6 November 2018 (MST)

Neutral

As the Discord server is owned by GamerAim it is solely under the power and authority of GamerAim to decide if they feel their server should be designated 'official'. Even if it weren't/or they do agree with the vote, this kind of decision should discussed and consensus evaluated before putting to a vote.

As such, this vote is effectively pointless, unless you discuss with the server owner and you all agree to go ahead with it and only after we as a community have discussed the potential moves forward. It's the same as making a vote that says "Let's make the Whitehouse an official D&D Wiki base" out of the blue. --SgtLion (talk) 06:40, 4 November 2018 (MST)

The vote says "an" official Discord server. Obviously, the one I made would be the best choice since it already exists and has a good user base; there's no point in making an official Discord server if all we do is fracture the user base. However, if I declined, and GD insisted that we must have an official Discord server, it would be mandated that a new one be made. That said, GD has insisted on quite the opposite, and holding a vote on this matter without first discussing it with him is unwise because there's no certainty that he would uphold the result — and to be clear, I don't think he's under any obligation to uphold it unless he says he'll uphold it.--GamerAim (talk) 06:50, 4 November 2018 (MST)

Ah, that does make some more sense, thanks. --SgtLion (talk) 09:53, 4 November 2018 (MST)

I'd like to think this discussion is about "whether we should have a official discord server or not" rather then "should we make GA's unofficial server, official". In which case I'd like to state for everyone's knowledge that if consensus is reached over having an official dnd wiki server that GA's permission isn't needed to do so. Just to use the server he has ownership over as the site for the official server. And that creation of an server not based off GA's server can easily be done. —ConcealedLight (talk) 06:15, 17 November 2018 (MST)

This is true, but I question the conduct of an administrator like you who would so willingly fracture the user base out of nothing more than a blatant dislike of me.--GamerAim (talk) 06:18, 21 November 2018 (MST)

Please assume good intent and try to keep on topic. Thanks. —ConcealedLight (talk) 05:46, 23 November 2018 (MST)

I will vote once adequate discussion has taken place over the matters of debate. —ConcealedLight (talk) 06:15, 17 November 2018 (MST)

Official D&D Wiki Discord Server Policies Referendums

This is a collection of referendums for policies that an official D&D Wiki Discord server — as well as other "official" D&D Wiki communications channels — would follow. These referendums are not legally binding and I do not have authority to enforce them. They are to be used as a discussion forum to gather the community's thoughts on a variety of issues in a format that is easier to keep track of than above. The consensus derived from these discussions should help to determine the path we take going forward.

Note: Server ownership, external emotes and the admin channel were intentionally left out of this topic header because the former two have already been discussed at length. Overwhelming this topic with those subjects would defeat the point of making a new topic header. The admin channel is left out because there's nothing anyone can really do to stop what's essentially a group PM.

I cannot accept these server policy referendums if we do not discuss server ownership. I for one do not feel that the only person who can ban users is in any way relatable to my physical D&D Wiki connections. I for one do not find the current methods of banning users just. I would prefer much more oversight in this process. --Green Dragon (talk) 22:17, 21 November 2018 (MST)

I think you misunderstood something, because ALL admins have ban/unban permissions.--GamerAim (talk) 05:16, 22 November 2018 (MST)

I believe GD is referring to the fact that the server owner has the ability to ban other admins, while the same cannot be said for admins being able to ban each other. — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 07:16, 22 November 2018 (MST)

Admins shouldn't generally be banned.--GamerAim (talk) 08:10, 22 November 2018 (MST)

I cannot find how to ban a user.

ConcealedLight was banned for a reason which is unacceptable on D&D Wiki. Until the server ownership is resolved, with a responsible solution, I don't see this server as becoming official.

Just like how we wouldn't ban a user for voicing their opinion about, say, the admin team e.g. "If an admin tells you to change something you have to do it", CL is entitled to opinions.

From GamerAim: "@White The next time you say something that I construe as negative about me, I'm kicking you. I am tired of the way you talk about me on Discord and D&D Wiki. And until this server is made official, I will not condone your toxicity in my presence any longer. I don't want a response. I don't want an, "ok ga whatever you say." I want you to stop slinging s*** at me every opportunity you get. Feel free to twist my words to make me look like the bad guy, like you always do. Just don't do it where I can see. Because I see right through you."

And, "CL thought I'd let him get away with it forever just because he pulled the wool over everyone elses' eyes. But I remembered and I logged and I am done with him." --Green Dragon (talk) 22:56, 22 November 2018 (MST)

CL was banned from an unofficial Discord server. If it were official, I'd have let you shield him from all consequences just like you do on here, but as of now, it isn't official, and I don't have to allow such a toxic presence as CL in the unofficial D&D Wiki Discord server that I run as a courtesy to D&D Wiki's users. Like I said there, you weren't willing to deal with CL, so I did.

CL wasn't banned for voicing an opinion. He was banned because I got fed up with his consistent backhanded, disparaging, destructive criticism. It wasn't as if he just let me know he disagreed with something I did, or there was something I was doing wrong and needed to change. CL has never accepted that I made decisions he disagreed with. He has never accepted any criticism, including my pleas for him to treat me with the same respect in Discord that I always afforded him. No, instead he continued to take pot-shots at me, telling me just that he was disappointed me in without telling me exactly why, in an attempt to manipulate me. Because that's what CL does: he manipulates me, including you. He twists everything I say around to make me look like the villain when I'm not. He belittles me at every opportunity.

So, after months of his consistently poor behavior and giving him plenty of chances to change, I banned him. CL abused the privilege of being here and exploited my good faith too many times, and this was his consequence. So please, go get on CL's back, not mine.--GamerAim (talk) 05:26, 23 November 2018 (MST)

Oh, and Geodude671 and ConcealedLight have both banned users in the Discord server, so look up a tutorial on it.--GamerAim (talk) 06:59, 23 November 2018 (MST)

I never said "deal with", and I don't really understand your context. Anyway, it's nice to know how you feel about the situation. Moving on, we need to discuss how the community would feel about (based off your email to me) making the current discord server official, implementing all referendums and policies that would be discussed on D&D Wiki, your role as server owner remaining, but bound to all policies on D&D Wiki (e.g. no blocks or decisions would be made without reaching concensus), while maintaining a ban on external emojis. Thoughts? --Green Dragon (talk) 08:42, 23 November 2018 (MST)

My largest concern is with the toxic behavior that discord has brought to the D&D Wiki community. For this reason I cannot see the benefits of it out weighing it's problems. --Green Dragon (talk) 09:30, 23 November 2018 (MST)

I would not be comfortable with GamerAim remaining owner of the server after it becomes official. His recent decision to ban ConcealedLight from the server in violation of warning policy (something that he is only able to do because he is the owner) makes me distrust his ability to moderate responsibly, let alone the multiple other issues I and other users have communicated with regards to this during the past few months. If we decide that the current server remains unofficial and is GamerAim's personal Discord server, then of course it would be fine for him to remain as owner, but if that's the case I'd rather not have to be a part of it.

I think it would be fine to keep the ban on external emoji for now, but it is something I'd like to see discussed either now or in the future. — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 09:30, 23 November 2018 (MST)

I did not violate warning policy. Despite my opposition, GD himself agreed earlier this year that admins don't technically need to follow warning policy before issuing bans. D&D Wiki admins already have authority to ban at discretion, and I used my discretion to ban a user who had been given multiple warnings — however unofficial — to be less toxic. That you are comfortable with CL's treatment of me does not mean that I have to condone his behavior myself. And before you say "just block him!" keep in mind that D&D Wiki itself lacks a similar block function, so why should a Discord-specific function take precedence over a function that is present on both platforms?

That said, I have already informed GD of my intention to take an extended leave of absence from the Discord server as soon as this is resolved, because I cannot sustain the amount of drama that I have been dragged into. Perhaps, upon my return, you will think differently about me? Either way, my continued role as server owner was suggested to ensure the ban on external emotes.--GamerAim (talk) 09:46, 23 November 2018 (MST)

Please, don't mis-quote me. I've said it before, and once again, don't quote users but make their comments your own. I never said any of those things in this context. Mis-quoting users does not adhere to policy. --Green Dragon (talk) 09:54, 23 November 2018 (MST)

Please, tell me where I mis-quoted you? GD, would you please tell what exactly you think I mis-quoted you on? It was probably just a misunderstanding. You know how much I hate mis-quotes :P --GamerAim (talk) 10:17, 23 November 2018 (MST)

I think we all see this situation has become highly-charged, but there's no reason for an all-or-nothing environment. There's room for compromise. I suggest that we just make a new server with GD as "server owner" and all D&D Wiki admins who choose to be as Discord admins, but keep both listed. We might have to change the description of "my" server so as to not confuse the two, but we already agreed to keep "mine" listed, and I believe it'd help prevent fragmentation or ill will from existing Discord users. While I'd still disagree with the use of external emotes in the new one, the existence of the old one would mean that users could still engage with the D&D Wiki community on Discord without them. This is assuming, of course, that GD thinks giving users paid privileges in an official Discord server isn't inappropriate :) --GamerAim (talk) 11:54, 23 November 2018 (MST)

I think this proposal is completely reasonable. I just want to emphasize that the current server should explicitly be labeled as unofficial and GamerAim's personal space to prevent confusion. — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 12:17, 23 November 2018 (MST)

I think this proposal is reasonable too. GD doesn't even need to be active on discord to be the server owner, since the only unique responsibility he'd then have would be promoting or demoting admins, but honestly just making sure that the server's ownership is in good hands is literally all I need to feel satisfied with rejoining it. Varkarrus (talk) 14:22, 23 November 2018 (MST)

TBH, I think the wording as-is might be suitable. Maybe some changes to the third and fourth sentences to recognize recent events?--GamerAim (talk) 12:24, 23 November 2018 (MST)

This works and it seems there is consensus for it. Though I'd like to hear from GD first before we proceed. —ConcealedLight (talk) 06:05, 25 November 2018 (MST)

I mentioned that admins can block users, using their discretion, when they break policy. Not that admins can just block users.

Now that we have created a discord server, is there agreement to make it official or should it be put to a vote? --Green Dragon (talk) 23:14, 25 November 2018 (MST)

I got your email last night, but the weekend is over and I won't respond until later this evening at the earliest, but more likely tomorrow evening at the earliest. Should we wait for that before deciding on anything, or have you changed your mind due to my delay in responding?--GamerAim (talk) 05:39, 26 November 2018 (MST)

Yes, let's wait. I thought that you didn't want to respond since you were active on discord at the time. --Green Dragon (talk) 08:46, 26 November 2018 (MST)

By creating a new official discord server, we will need to re-create the community that GamerAim has built on the current server. In addition, there will be two discord servers for the same purposes around D&D Wiki. GamerAim and myself have reached an agreement about how we do not need to take this route.

If we reach concensus about this agreement, the current server can become official. The agreement that I am proposing would have the following caveats.

1. Discord's server ownership will be transferred to myself.
2. These referendums will be implemented.
3. In the case that GamerAim wants the discord server's owner role back, by means of a formal statement, then this role will be returned to him but the server will then no longer be the official discord server for D&D Wiki.
4. External emojis will remain taboo indefinitely or until GamerAim reaches a concensus.

Can we reach concensus for D&D Wiki's official discord server by agreeing to these caveats? --Green Dragon (talk) 08:39, 28 November 2018 (MST)

I don't quite understand what you mean by "until GamerAim reaches consensus", with regards to external emoji. Should this be read as "until GamerAim decides to allow them"? Should this be read as "until the community reaches consensus, even if GamerAim personally disagrees with it"?

I otherwise support your proposal, but I would like clarification on the last bullet point. — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 08:57, 28 November 2018 (MST)

I am glad to see us making progress on coming up with increasingly-better solutions to this schism! Obviously, I support GD's suggested plan, as he said, but Geodude brings up a good point that I can clarify: #4 should actually read, "External emotes will remain banned within the Discord server until GamerAim agrees to revoke the ban." So yeah, Geodude, your first intuition was right :) --GamerAim (talk) 10:21, 28 November 2018 (MST)

Why should this policy decision be left up to the sole discretion of one user, if this is to become the official D&D Wiki Discord? Shouldn't this be decided through community discussion and consensus? Leaving this to the decision of one person goes against the wiki's collaborative spirit.

If the fourth bullet point is amended to read "until the community reaches consensus," I will then fully support this proposal. — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 11:13, 28 November 2018 (MST)

You speak of the D&D Wiki spirit as if allowing D&D Wiki to adopt my server as official under the condition that users not be granted special privileges in that official server if they pay a third party is more against the spirit of D&D Wiki than allowing users special privilege in the official server if they pay a third party for them? The bullet will not be changed, but nor can I change your decision if you insist on it.--GamerAim (talk) 11:56, 28 November 2018 (MST)

Please do not twist my words. I am saying that the community should be able to decide for itself whether users should be allowed that special privilege. If we hold a discussion about it, and consensus is built and adhered to, I will then leave the issue alone, regardless of what that consensus is. I have already communicated this to you multiple times, but I feel as if the previous consensus on external emotes was ignored, and I know I'm not the only one that feels this way. External emotes being allowed or not has no effect on me; I do not have a Discord premium account nor do I plan to purchase one; I voice my support for this (and loudly) for the sole reason that, to me, it seems the community wishes for that to be allowed. — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 12:42, 28 November 2018 (MST)

I did not twist your words. I just disagree that the community should be able to decide this any more than they should decide to disallow anon page creations or 5e Homebrew. I have supported the community many times I have disagreed with it, but I disagree that it has the authority to make this decision.--GamerAim (talk) 13:02, 28 November 2018 (MST)

External emojis are not the straw that broke the camels back. I guess that my initial problem is that I don't even know what the normal emojis on discord are, or even how to use or add new ones. I also have no idea what the emojis are supposed to do in real-time chat other than, like standard emojis, be used to convey emotions through a representational pictogram.

With this in mind, my goal in this process is not to allow or ban a feature on discord, but rather allow users on discord to convey their emotions in real-time chat. If they cannot do this using just the normal emojis, the service should be improved, so I am quite fine keeping the ban on external emojis in this case. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:11, 28 November 2018 (MST)

To give some explanation, discord has a bank of default of emoticons. Discord servers can create their own bank of emoticons that can be used by anyone on their server. Users with discord nitro, however, can use emoticons from any server they join giving rise to servers who's sole purpose to to host custom emoticons as well as use animated emoticons. Most people use the nitro service solely for its emoticons and it is disappointing for those that pay for such a server to be met with a blanket no regardless of consensus on the topic. As such I'm in alignment with Geo's issue taken with point 4. Lastly I don't understand what is meant by point 3. There are already two server's does GamerAim effectively own both of them with the implementation of this point? —ConcealedLight (talk) 03:52, 30 November 2018 (MST)

This got really long again! CL and Geodude seem willing to die on the external emotes hill, so I'll just clarify #3 for CL: If you're referring to the server that currently has 6 admins and a bot in it, GD would presumably delete it as it would no longer be needed. It was created for use in my prior suggestion — which, unfortunately, people still seem to favor. Does that clear things up? :) --GamerAim (talk) 06:05, 30 November 2018 (MST)

GA's explanation of #3 is what I expected would happen.

I don't see why my asking for consensus to be built and adhered to is unreasonable. This is how a wiki operates. Just as my creating a page on the wiki doesn't give me ultimate authority over it, neither should one user have ultimate authority over the official D&D Wiki Discord server just because he created it. — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 11:54, 30 November 2018 (MST)

First of all, we disagree on consensus. You think consensus should be a vote, whereas I think it should be whoever has the best arguments. And none of the arguments I've heard in favor of external emotes state why a D&D Wiki server should allow them, but instead focus on how it's unfair to users who paid for them, despite nothing having been taken away from users who paid for them (which I did not encourage them to do in the first place). And secondly, I don't think that external emotes are a thing within the purview of the community to make a decision on. Not every decision on D&D Wiki is left up to a vote or even to consensus. This is how a wiki operates.

But then, I don't see why it's unreasonable to ask that the D&D Wiki community not engage in unethical practices if it wants to use the server that I created as its official space, especially since it would kill two birds with one stone to protect the community.

The difference here is that when you post an article to D&D Wiki, you are agreeing to the terms of the site. The above terms are the terms I am willing to agree to, not your terms, which I never agreed to. There has even been a couple of cases where D&D Wiki has hosted works from authors under the condition that the articles be locked to prevent editing. So even on D&D Wiki, there are times when "one user [does] have ultimate authority over the [article] just because he created it."--GamerAim (talk) 12:14, 30 November 2018 (MST)

Consensus is neither of these, rather "[a] consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised." "[In discussions] editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense; they can also suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerns." However, consensus is used for all decisions except for a select few: w:Wikipedia:Consensus#Decisions not subject to consensus of editors.

There are multiple aspects of discord that are not compatible with MediaWiki's functions. Since external emojis are just another feature on discord, I don't find it to be wrong to not allow users to use this feature (even though normally features exist to be used). --Green Dragon (talk) 08:20, 1 December 2018 (MST)

Since we have not reached consensus on GamerAims and my agreement, but we have reached consensus for making an official discord server, the newly created discord server is the official discord server for D&D Wiki. If we decide to re-evaluate the situation, and reach a new consensus about the agreement, we can do this at a later point in time. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:49, 4 December 2018 (MST)

Adult Theme

Right now, the Discord has an #adult-theme channel that is exempt from almost all rules. Some people have expressed an interest in deleting this channel and disallowing the topics completely because the contents of the channel can be damaging to intra-community relationships as it is filled mostly with hateful rhetoric. Others have argued that users would break the rules in other channels if we deleted the #adult-theme channel. I have argued that admins have admin powers to deal with these troublesome users.

Should topics that D&D Wiki would consider "adult theme" be allowed for discussion (and with what, if any, restrictions) or should they be disallowed completely?

Discussion

• For some context, that channel originally started out as a sort of quarantine for political discussion. Since politics is inevitably a divisive topic, that channel allowed people that wanted to talk about it to talk about it while allowing users with an active dislike for such discussion to mute the channel and never have to look at it. Previous to the creation of this channel (at the time it was named #controversial) such discussion usually took place in the #casual channel where it was complained about. I don't consider the #adult-theme channel to be exempt from any rules, but if the rules needed to be enforced there (they haven't yet needed to be, to my knowledge), I would likely be a bit more relaxed with the enforcement of some rules. Currently, what is considered appropriate to discuss there is left to moderator discretion, which isn't ideal, but to my knowledge, no topic of discussion brought up there has yet been shut down by the admin team.

To be clear, this isn't my vote on the topic (I'm still deciding how I wish to vote), I'm just trying to provide additional information and context for this topic. — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 08:44, 21 November 2018 (MST)

Oppose

Support

• Whenever I read this channel, I notice how little it has anything to do with D&D. It seems like little more than a place for hateful rhetoric. Like it was suggested in the previous discussion, Adult Theme pages on D&D Wiki are only marked as such. On Discord this discussion gets it's own channel. Why don't other categories on D&D Wiki also get their own channels, like April Fools, stub, or delete? My suggestion on bringing order into the adult themes is to delete the channel. A more appropriate channel would be delete, which would encourage collaborative edits to save deleted pages. --Green Dragon (talk) 22:53, 21 November 2018 (MST)

• I agree this isn't an appropriate channel to have on this wiki's discord server. —ConcealedLight (talk) 05:46, 23 November 2018 (MST)

• I had the channel muted. Every time I was dragged into there it caused undue stress. Probably for the best it's removed. Varkarrus (talk) 14:06, 23 November 2018 (MST)

Neutral

Blocking

Clarification: blocking on Discord is roughly equivalent to a ban on D&D Wiki, with the distinction that Discord blocks are enforced on a technical level by the Discord software. Right now, users on Discord are free to block each other if they don't want to see the other person's messages. This removes the user's messages from the blocker's chat window and prevents the user from privately messaging the blocker. However, this functionality is not present on D&D Wiki — there is no way to remove a user's edits from your display. There is also no way to technically stop users from blocking each other on Discord, but we could create a policy prohibiting the blocking of members of the D&D Wiki Discord server, should it be confirmed that the user has indeed blocked another. This would be relatively easy to confirm, as we could have the blocked users PM the blocker a safe word (determined by an admin at the time of inquest) and ask the blocker to tell the admin that safe word. Although, the blocked user could always lie about sending it, thereby getting the "blocker" in trouble.

Should users be prohibited from blocking other users of the D&D Wiki Discord server?

Discussion

I'd just like to point out that users really want an official Discord server that follows D&D Wiki policies and procedures until it's inconvenient for them to do that, and then they want Discord to be treated special.--GamerAim (talk) 06:05, 30 November 2018 (MST)

I'd also like to point out that the Tavern does not support this functionality, and that this functionality could be used to block administrators. I'm not going to die on this hill, but I'd like all the information to be out there.--GamerAim (talk) 06:05, 30 November 2018 (MST)

It's in users' own best interest to not block admins, even if we don't explicitly make a rule against it. If a user is behaving badly and breaking the rules, and the admin warning them happens to be blocked by that user, the user will continue breaking the rules and will just end up muted/kicked/banned because of the choices they've made. If you really think blocking admins is such a big deal, maybe we could make a rule just against blocking admins? — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 11:54, 30 November 2018 (MST)

Oppose

• What. Uh, no?? That's really stupid. Maybe someone's enjoyment on the server is contingent with not having to interact with particular people if they do not want to, which would be MUCH harder to do on the discord vs the wiki if it wasn't for the block feature. Blocking people in the wiki makes less sense because users shouldn't be able to prevent specific other users from editing a page, but blocking a user from posting on your talk page SHOULD be a thing if it ever became a problem. Varkarrus (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2018 (MST)

• There is realistically no way to enforce this policy and users should have the right to enjoy the rest of a server without interacting with a particular user(s). —ConcealedLight (talk) 03:52, 30 November 2018 (MST)

Support

• D&D Wiki doesn't support this functionality, so I support removing it. We could provisionally allow users to block each other if there is currently a D&D Wiki ban on them in place.--GamerAim (talk) 10:28, 28 November 2018 (MST)

Neutral

• I'm not opposed to this, but I am concerned that it could be difficult to enforce. — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 12:49, 28 November 2018 (MST)

Channels

We should discuss what channels we want on the server, along with names and organization because people were concerned about changes in naming and organization being made without discussion. I know I said we wouldn't discuss #admin, but I think we might as well do it now too. Right now, the channels are:

• Important
  • 1. rules - This channel gave the server rules, which should probably include a link to D&D Wiki's policy page. Should it only link back to D&D Wiki's pages? We should publicly create a draft of rules to display here.
    2. announcements - This channel was used to give out important news on the server. Should it mirror D&D Wiki's main page news? What else should it contain?
• Wiki Channels
  • 1. designlab - System non-specific discussion, like world-building, NPCs, etc. It wasn't used often, but I think it has its uses.
    2. dnd5e - For discussing official and homebrew D&D 5e content. Used frequently due to D&D 5e being the "current" edition.
    3. dnd4e - For discussing official and homebrew D&D 4e content. Used rarely, but D&D 4e is formally supported on D&D Wiki so I think it should remain.
    4. pathfinder - For discussing official and homebrew Pathfinder content. Used rarely, but Pathfinder is formally supported on D&D Wiki so I think it should remain.
    5. dnd3e - For discussing official and homebrew D&D 3e/3.5e content. Used rarely, but D&D 3.5e is formally supported on D&D Wiki so I think it should remain.
    6. adnd - For discussing official and homebrew AD&D content. Used rarely, but AD&D 2.5e is formally supported on D&D Wiki so I think it should remain.
    7. d20m - For discussing official and homebrew d20 Modern content. Used rarely, but d20 Modern is formally supported on D&D Wiki so I think it should remain.
    8. ogl - For discussing ogl-specific topics, such as the various SRD and third-party OGL publication transcriptions. Used infrequently by me to report on 3e SRD updates.
  • voice-chat-designlab - For voice-chatting about homebrew. Used rarely, but has seen use by some irregular users.
• General
  • 1. help - Catch-all help channel. Formerly used to discuss Discord server policy and other important non-D&D matters. Active channel.
    2. casual - Catch-all everything else channel. Active channel.
    3. media - Formerly #art, used for sharing art, videos, memes and other media. Used frequently to avoid disrupting #casual with irrelevant YouTube videos and memes.
  • voice-chat-casual-fridays - Rarely used. We probably only need a single voice-chat channel.
  • voice-chat-music - Was used for awhile to have a bot play music in chat before the bot broke. Should we have a discussion on what bots we use? This channel probably isn't needed.
• Spooky
  • 1. admin - Some people have expressed that an official D&D Wiki Discord server shouldn't support a hidden admins-only server because it removes an element of transparency that is present on D&D Wiki. And I agree. It should be removed.

Discussion

See above.--GamerAim (talk) 10:58, 25 November 2018 (MST)

I think that we only need a single voice-chat channel. If it really gets used, and players want to use voice-chat to play D&D then we can expand it at that point.

I'm indifferent as to whether or not we should have background music.

What is your idea for a "spooky" channel?

I see the purpose for an admin channel. In case there is something cannot be mediated or enforced, and it needs to be pointed out somewhere, this channel would serve its purpose. Probably someone who uses discord more would know how important this channel really is. If it does exist, then I agree that it needs to be readable for all users. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:14, 25 November 2018 (MST)

"spooky" isn't a channel - it's a channel group containing admin-only channels. All of the first-level list items are channel categories. I think that #admin is unnecessary, but as you say we can make it read-only if users think it's important that we have it.--GamerAim (talk) 19:20, 27 November 2018 (MST)

In my experience, an admin channel should remain private and for the wiki it should be considered akin to a group email between administrators. There should definitely only be one voice channel. —ConcealedLight (talk) 03:52, 30 November 2018 (MST)

A suggestion to avoid clutter of unused channels would be to make a catch all dnd channel including 4e, 3.5e, 3e, 2e, and adnd with the 5e channel being separate due to its popularity. —ConcealedLight (talk) 03:52, 30 November 2018 (MST)

Is this your experience as a Discord administrator or a D&D Wiki administrator? Because on D&D Wiki, 99% of all discussions are public. I think that if you want to send a group email, you can, but I don't think that D&D Wiki should formally systematically obfuscate discussions from the majority of users. D&D Wiki does not do this.

Also, we shouldn't play favorites regarding editions. We're D&D Wiki, not D&D 5e Plus Some Other Contributions Wiki. We don't do it on the sidebar here, so why would we do it on Discord?--GamerAim (talk) 06:05, 30 November 2018 (MST)

D&D Wiki officially supports editions other than 5th, so I agree that there should be channels for each of them. I understand the viewpoint of wanting to condense them all into a single or a few channels, but still think they should each be separate as some editions/systems are very different from one another.

I'm torn on the issue of admin channel visibility. On one hand, from a wiki standpoint, all discussions are public, so I can see why some would advocate for its visibility or removal. On the other hand, from the viewpoint of Discord in general and other servers I've been in/moderated in the past, Discord servers typically do have a private mod-only channel to discuss the behavior and discipline of other users rather than in a public channel, for privacy reasons. Based on the values held by this community, I'm leaning toward the admin channel in the official server being made visible, or removed, though I'm open to being convinced otherwise. And besides, in the event that the admins do need to discuss something in private, we can just create a group PM. — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 11:54, 30 November 2018 (MST)

I know you said you agree that the admin channel should be visible, but for the benefit of users who might forget this, I'd like to remind them that D&D Wiki is D&D Wiki, not other communities. One of the things that makes D&D Wiki great is its transparency and the relatively flat hierarchy of users :) --GamerAim (talk) 12:14, 30 November 2018 (MST)

Cross-Accountability

Right now, warnings and bans do not transfer between D&D Wiki and its official Tavern chatroom. i.e. being warned or banned from one does not automatically get the user warned or banned from the other, except under special circumstances as per admin discretion. Secondarily, should off-site behavior be taken into consideration for any consensus (such as a race OP being a pedophile off-site or a user being stripped of adminship for out-of-context screenshots of off-site behavior)?

Should users be held accountable to off-site behavior, and under what circumstances (where does this apply and what transfers between these places)?

Discussion

One way I can see this working without going too overboard is that we keep D&D Wiki and the Tavern separate as-is, but merge jurisdiction between the Tavern, Discord server, etc. This way, there's cross-accountability between non-Wiki chat, but administrators aren't expected to administrate chat platforms.

As I've said before, doing this would set a dangerous precedent of stretching D&D Wiki's authority beyond its URL, to places where our authority cannot always be guaranteed. It seems to me as if some users expect D&D Wiki to take off-site matters into its own hands without regard for the imbalance that creates in a one-way relationship. And we can ban whomever we want for any reason, but if it isn't relevant to D&D Wiki proper, then who are we to make that decision? Who are we to become the internet police and punish people just because we dislike them? We are D&D Wiki: a wiki for Dungeons & Dragons homebrew content. That should be our only jurisdiction and the only thing of relevance to administration powers. Please stop trying to turn D&D Wiki into interpol and create more stress and problems for administrators who only want to administrate a wiki for Dungeons & Dragons homebrew content and third-party OGL transcriptions.--GamerAim (talk) 06:19, 21 November 2018 (MST)

• On this topic I think it would be best to springboard off of Wikipedia's policy on off-wiki harassment. To quote that link (not directly), a wiki user's poor interactions with other wiki users off-site can create serious doubts as to whether that user's on-wiki actions are conducted in good faith. It should be admissible evidence in dispute resolution and other discussions about a user's behavior (yes, this includes RfA).

In my opinion, the tavern, the official D&D Wiki Discord server (if we decide to create one/make GA's server official), and other wiki social media pages should be treated as extensions of the wiki (frankly I'm surprised that the tavern is considered separate despite being literally on-site). If it represents the wiki, it should be held to the same standard as the wiki itself.

As for the specific example that GamerAim used of a user being a pedophile, such a user should be banned immediately and permanently. This should be a no-brainer; minors use this site and contribute to it. That's not to say that we should perform such action based solely on an accusation and/or evidence which is flimsy at best, because that can create a host of other problems, but if there's reasonable suspicion, action should be taken. — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 08:44, 21 November 2018 (MST)

D&D Wiki has a long-standing precedent of not getting involved in foreign affairs. Being a pedophile on deviantart should not be a bannable offense on D&D Wiki, for the simple reason that we don't have the manpower to police the entire world. It also places unfair bias against users who, say, use the same username on multiple platforms. As I said before when Vark first brought it up, it isn't fair for me to be held "accountable" for conduct on Discord — regardless of whether I've actually done anything wrong — just because a D&D Wiki user knows I'm on Discord, whereas that same user could be doing terrible things on another website that we know nothing about. If I thought we could do this in a fair and just way, I'd be all for expanding our jurisdiction to gross proportions, but there's no way to do this that holds everyone equally accountable. Maybe Wikipedia can, or maybe Wikipedia's way is flawed, I don't know. But I, for one, didn't become an administrator on D&D Wiki to police the whole internet. I don't want the stress or time-consumption of that job, which I wouldn't be paid for.

The way this wiki has been run has worked for over a decade. We have operated in good faith and judged users by their contributions to this Wiki. I fail to see how expanding our jurisdiction and putting more stress or work on administrators to administrate other websites contributes a benefit to D&D Wiki. Tell us that: tell us how this actually improves D&D Wiki rather than creating more drama in the community just because users can't play nice off-site.--GamerAim (talk) 09:07, 21 November 2018 (MST)

If it was proposed that wiki users should be held accountable for off-site behavior IN GENERAL, that would definitely be way too broad and restrictive, and place unfair bias towards some users, as you stated above. It would be completely unreasonable to sanction you because you got in a slapfight with some random dude in /r/politics or wherever, because it doesn't have anything to do with us. It obviously isn't happening on our site, yes, but it also probably isn't with another wiki user, and it probably isn't about something that happened on the wiki. As I envision this policy, it would only apply when one wiki user behaves poorly toward another wiki user over something happening or that happened on-wiki, or on an official wiki platform such as our Facebook page. As is the case with the corresponding Wikipedia policy, we'd only know about it if one of the users reported it to us, going "hey this other wikian was mean to me." If the user who is on the receiving end of this behavior doesn't report it, we won't know about it, and that's okay. If someone chooses not to report another user's poor behavior toward them, that's their choice.

Our current policy regarding this contains a loophole that allows one wikian to behave completely atrociously toward another wikian over something that happened on the wiki, and suffer little to no repercussions for it. The loophole wasn't put there intentionally, and to my knowledge, it has never been intentionally abused, but it is a loophole that exists regardless and should be closed.

With regards to deviantart, if you're referring to the situation that I think you are, the evidence for that was flimsy at best, and I agree that it would have been inappropriate for us to ban that user. — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 09:50, 21 November 2018 (MST)

It isn't about "their choice," but whether they have one at all. What if a D&D Wiki user harassed another D&D Wiki user over something that happened on D&D Wiki using a pseudonym? My point is, people could harass each other without being truthful about their identity. And as I said, we're not the internet police. It isn't our job to stalk every user to make sure they abide by our policies off the site. I wish it was, truly, but we can't actually do it. We do not possess the means to do this right.

And the way things are isn't a loophole. It's an intentional administrative decision to not involve ourselves in off-site affairs. It's unfortunate, as I've said, but it isn't some loophole that needs closed. If someone is harassing you on Discord, report it to Discord. If they're harassing you IRL, report it to the police. Find the authoritative body that actually has jurisdiction and don't expect D&D Wiki to play the internet police, because as I have said many times now, we are not the internet police.

I'm sure we're thinking of the same user, yeah, but it wouldn't matter if that user had drawn explicit child pornography on deviantart. As I've been saying, you could report them to that site's staff. They would not be allowed to post child pornography here and they would likely be permanently banned on the spot if they did. I do not like people who draw such things any more than you do, believe me, but I am a D&D Wiki administrator, not a vigilante.

Somewhere along the line, I think this community forgot about assuming good faith. And that we're a friggin' Dungeons & Dragons homebrew wiki and not Interpol. The fact that a D&D Wiki administrator believes that we should wield that much power shows, to me, that any attempt to implement cross-accountability wouldn't end well.--GamerAim (talk) 10:07, 21 November 2018 (MST)

Furthermore, some behaviors and actions might be sanctioned on other platforms. I'm sure child pornography is illegal on DA, but if it wasn't, who are we to say that you can't follow the rules of other places because we don't want users on D&D Wiki who break D&D Wiki rules in places where we can't (and I mean, we cannot, regardless of this policy) enforce our rules. All that's gonna tell users is, "don't go on D&D Wiki because they'll ban you when you did nothing wrong." And you might be thinking, "surely that wouldn't happen!" But by the same token, I'm still asking myself why we need this kind of authority. I fail to see the benefit to D&D Wiki, so all that's left to consider is the drawbacks. You talk of wanting to close loopholes, but you're arguing in favor of (though haven't voted in support of) a policy that presents no benefits to D&D Wiki and has the potential (which I do think would be quickly actualized) to do harm to D&D Wiki and its users. Beware of trying to close loopholes with sledgehammers: you might just create a bigger hole.--GamerAim (talk) 10:31, 21 November 2018 (MST)

I totally agree that if a user is using D&D Wiki to link to their inappropriate behavior, or somehow using their users to create communication between the two sites then it's very important that we use the off-wiki harassment policy to resolve the situation. If we can only make assumptions about a user's behavior then why should we assume the worst case and block or ban them on D&D Wiki for something that they may or may not have done? --Green Dragon (talk) 23:15, 21 November 2018 (MST)

What's the consensus on this topic? It looks like everyone but me got side-tracked by an unrelated Wikipedia policy. Do warnings and blocks apply across D&D Wiki, Discord, reddit and/or the Tavern? Does this Wikipedia policy apply to conduct on D&D Wiki being taken into account on Discord? I dislike that, after D&D Wiki operated for years without issue, suddenly Geodude keeps bringing up unused Wikipedia policies that only make administrating D&D Wiki more complicated, so I'd prefer that we actually discuss a policy as relates to D&D Wiki, rather than pulling up Wikipedia policies that might not work well for us, if they even apply to this topic at all.--GamerAim (talk) 08:41, 25 November 2018 (MST)

The Wikipedia policy deals with mediations, harassment and hounding for wiki-threats, etc. It does not cover that a specific site with its own structures for dealing with problems, needs to be carried over to Wikipedia.

For this reason, like before, problems on discord or the tavern should be resolved in their appropriate locations without being carried over to D&D Wiki. If a user has other intentions, is threatening a user to edit D&D Wiki like they say, or such matters, then they would be appropriately blocked from all the channels that they are using for ill-purposes. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:14, 25 November 2018 (MST)

GD, for clarity, we are using this bit of wikipedia policy but rejecting the proposal for universal accountability right? —ConcealedLight (talk) 03:52, 30 November 2018 (MST)

That was my understanding. — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 11:54, 30 November 2018 (MST)

Oppose

• I will always oppose for the reasons given above and elsewhere. I'm here to improve D&D Wiki and help its users, not get involved in petty off-site politics or administrate a site that sticks its hands where they don't belong.--GamerAim (talk) 09:07, 21 November 2018 (MST)

• The idea itself isn't bad, but it's terribly unstructured. Like you mentioned above, if somone gets in a slapfight somewhere else, the method of communication probably played the largest role. On D&D Wiki a slapfight would not be the same as a slapfight on Reddit. We are comparing apples to oranges. Unless its brought up as a dispute resolution case like off-wiki harassment recommends, its best to recognize each seperate site and use their methods for dealing with disruptions. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:15, 21 November 2018 (MST)

• I agree that Wikipedia's off wiki harassment policy is a fitting in this case. —ConcealedLight (talk) 05:46, 23 November 2018 (MST)

• I argued in favor of this because I was under the impression that currently, we could only take into account behavior that occurred on-wiki no matter what, regardless of context. Now that Green Dragon has clarified to me that we do already use Wikipedia's policy on off-wiki harassment, I see no reason to create further policy on this matter. — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 09:03, 23 November 2018 (MST)

• I oppose. Universal accountability is a bit extreme, with the off-site harassment policy being acceptable for general use. Believe it or not, I don't care TOO much about how a D&D admin, let alone a user, acts off site. I definitely feel that an admin should be careful about what they say off-site when acting in official capacity as a D&D wiki admin; and if aren't careful and consequences arise because of it, a discussion should be had. Really, I felt the discord was a special case; whether or not it was official, it was objectively an extension (without being a secret 'clique') of the community. Drama and arguments will spill over to D&D wiki no matter what, simply due to the shared population. Thus, I will argue in support of cross-accountability towards extensions of this community, and if they have to be made official first, so be it. Varkarrus (talk) 14:06, 23 November 2018 (MST)

Support

Neutral

Deleted Messages

Right now, a bot logs deleted/edited Discord messages in an admin-only channel. This is how D&D Wiki operates.

Should deleted/edited Discord messages be visible to non-admins?

Discussion

• My largest concern lies in the fact that we can delete the bot's posts, hence removing all traces of evidence. Is there a way to fully lock this channel? --Green Dragon (talk) 23:36, 21 November 2018 (MST)

No. The admin role grants every permission to those that have it and also bypasses channel-specific permissions. The best thing to do here, in my opinion, is to routinely patrol the audit log, and if an admin is found to have deleted something from the log, then that warrants exceptional scrutiny. — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 07:13, 22 November 2018 (MST)

Is this bot working on the newly setup discord server? --Green Dragon (talk) 23:14, 25 November 2018 (MST)

Yes. It catches you if you delete a message. Though it won't if you delete the bot's message something only admins and mods can do. However, the audit log does says if a message has been deleted from that channel. So I believe this is the closest we can get to ensuring the integrity of channel. —ConcealedLight (talk) 03:52, 30 November 2018 (MST)

Oppose

• I feel only admins should be able to view deleted messages on the Discord, as is the case on the wiki. Unfortunately, this means that normal users can't view edited messages, as they can on the wiki, and sadly there's no way to separate logs of the two actions into separate channels due to the way that the bot is set up, but Discord itself does show that a message was edited with a little "(edited)" appended to the end of the message, which is something I guess? Non-admins definitely shouldn't be able to view deleted messages, though. As for the accountability that GamerAim talked about, Discord already maintains a log of all administrative actions (the audit log) which, on our server, is made visible to all users, as is the case with the wiki's Special:Log, so as is the case on the wiki, normal users can see that something was deleted, where, and by whom, but only admins can see the specific contents of the deleted post. — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 08:44, 21 November 2018 (MST)
• I worry about this policy a little. It's a lot easier to post something by mistake on a chatroom vs a wiki, due to impulsiveness or whatnot. TBH I feel any message sent by mistake, that's quickly fixed by the sender, should be discouraged from becoming a source of drama, and while having a backup visible to admins is probably okay, having a backup of the original message that's public is a little much. It's possible this could be implemented, and my fears are unfounded. It's no deal breaker for me, but I don't feel the benefits are worth the risks. Varkarrus (talk) 14:06, 23 November 2018 (MST)

Support

• Yep, as should all channels! ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 08:18, 21 November 2018 (MST)
• I support this as well. I have always advocated for improved transparency on D&D Wiki, and particularly on Discord. Transparency is a key element to accountability, and I think that administrators should have as few special privileges as possible.--GamerAim (talk) 08:21, 21 November 2018 (MST)
• A big difference between D&D Wiki and discord, is that the latter allows every user to delete messages. If every user on D&D Wiki could delete pages, then I would hope that the system would be transparent for everyone. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:36, 21 November 2018 (MST)
• I can see the issue of restricted channels like the admin channel occasionally coming up in the log but other than that I don't see too much of an issue. —ConcealedLight (talk) 05:46, 23 November 2018 (MST)

The bot can be configured so that the log ignores specific channels, so this is absolutely not a concern. — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 11:54, 30 November 2018 (MST)

Neutral

Policy Creation

Right now, Discord has the authority to draft and implement its own policies.

Should Discord-specific policies be created on Discord proper? Should they be made here instead?

Discussion

• There's two questions, but I will answer with use the Wiki website. ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 08:20, 21 November 2018 (MST)

Oppose

Support

• I think it would be beneficial for Discord-specific policies to be created here, as it would be easier to both discern consensus and go back to read old discussion. Discussion moves a lot faster on Discord than it does on the wiki, and it's a huge pain in the butt to go back and look for months-old discussion on an issue. Discussing on the wiki would make it a lot easier for people to point to the discussion and say "this is what the consensus was" when the argument inevitably pops up again, regardless of on which side of the debate consensus falls, and the person/faction that "lost" the debate can't insist that consensus was on their side (again, regardless of which side of the debate that is), as has happened recently, to the chagrin of basically everybody. — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 08:44, 21 November 2018 (MST)

• I see no reason not to discuss policies for "official" D&D Wiki places on D&D Wiki proper for the reasons Geodude said.--GamerAim (talk) 09:14, 21 November 2018 (MST)

• Discord is not well suited for reaching concensus. Although it works to a degree, MediaWiki offers a successful solution which is incomparably better. The problems with the concensus that was reached or not for external emojis is so difficult to reference or even find, that almost no one actually knows what was said or agreed upon. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:48, 21 November 2018 (MST)

• Yup, as GD and Geo said. —ConcealedLight (talk) 05:46, 23 November 2018 (MST)

• Definitely. There's one other good argument to be made in support too; people who are not active on the discord can still be affected by its policy. They may be choosing to not be active on discord because a policy doesn't sit well with them, and they should be allowed to have a say in changing it should a vote come up, as that could make the difference between them staying inactive, or joining the server. Varkarrus (talk) 14:06, 23 November 2018 (MST)

Neutral

User Verification

Right now, user verification policy is pretty lax and any user can easily impersonate another one. Additionally, unverified users are allowed to chat in the Discord server.

Should unverified users be allowed chat privileges? How do we conduct user verification?

Discussion

I'm undecided, but I would like to note there's precedent for unverified users being disallowed in the Tavern. Perhaps, if the Tavern supports it, this discussion should also determine if anons are allowed in the Tavern? Although the Discord does have an email verification requirement for entry, so maybe we can leave the Tavern as-is regardless?--GamerAim (talk) 09:13, 21 November 2018 (MST)

I'm of the opinion that unverified users should be allowed speaking privileges for the casual and help channels. —ConcealedLight (talk) 05:46, 23 November 2018 (MST)

The verification of users can be accomplished by users stating their discord name and ID(ie: Name#123456) on maybe the talk page of the discord policy page or some other place like an administrator's talk page or the Admin talk. —ConcealedLight (talk) 05:46, 23 November 2018 (MST)

I'd like to voice my concern that there's a potential catch-22 arising from the obvious concerns of off-site harassment. This is to say that a user could enter the Discord server and harass other users, but not verify himself. We can't punish the user on D&D Wiki because they haven't been verified due to plausible deniability. But if we do punish the user, they could turn out to be innocent. And all the while the user who harassed other users gets away with it. This is why I am against allowing users to opt-out of verification if we insist on allowing Discord conduct to be held accountable for on D&D Wiki, because users who want to get away with toxic behavior can get away with it. But if the community insists on overlooking loopholes for the same of, um, closing loopholes(?), then I guess we can.--GamerAim (talk) 10:40, 25 November 2018 (MST)

On another note, should we impose any Discord verification requirements, such as email address verification?--GamerAim (talk) 10:40, 25 November 2018 (MST)

Oppose

Support

• I'm supporting although I think it might be a bit overzealous. First off, I don't see the impersonation as a likely thing to happen. Second, I can also see a case where a user joins the discord, impersonating another user (with no verification policy), and gets that user in trouble. However, that user on the D&D wiki would realize there was an impersonation, proves their identity and innocence, and has the punishment reversed. But, even though in that second scenario, there's low likelihood it'd happen, and the innocence can be proven easily... it still ultimately would damage the user's reputation and it may be worth stopping that before it happens. Really, it all depends on if it's worth the effort to the admins; each user only needs to be verified once, after all. Varkarrus (talk) 14:06, 23 November 2018 (MST)
• I agree that all users should be able to join the discord server, chat, and use the service. At the point when a user impersonates a contributor on D&D they should complete a user-verification process. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:14, 25 November 2018 (MST)

Neutral

• I don't currently have any thoughts on user verification itself, but I do believe that unverified users should be allowed chat privileges, as they are allowed to use wiki talk pages. — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 08:44, 21 November 2018 (MST)

Usernames

Right now, usernames can be changed as long as the user's D&D Wiki username is put in brackets (e.g. "!Do Not Disturb [GamerAim]").

Should users have freedom to choose an informal username?

Discussion

Oppose

Support

• As long as the user's on-wiki identity is clear, I see no problems with this. — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 09:54, 25 November 2018 (MST)

• I don't have a problem with this, so long as an unverified user does not impersonate another D&D contributor without agreeing to complete a user-verification. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:14, 25 November 2018 (MST)

Neutral

Warning Length

Right now, the Discord removes warnings after 3 months. This is a deviation from D&D Wiki policy.

Should Discord be allowed to remove warnings after 3 months instead of 6 months? Note: this could conflict with cross-accountability policy.

Discussion

• Just so people know why this is a thing, on Discord we decided to have a shorter warning length because of the faster pace of discussion there, as compared to wiki talk pages. This definitely needs discussion; as GamerAim mentioned, this could potentially conflict with the cross-accountability policy, as discussed above. — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 08:44, 21 November 2018 (MST)

Oppose

• I oppose, since I support cross-accountability. Actions on the discord that are worth warnings carry just as much weight as ones made on the wiki, too. No reason why the punishment should be any less. Then again, I feel the six month warning length on D&D wiki might be a bit long. Varkarrus (talk) 14:06, 23 November 2018 (MST)

Support

• As I oppose cross-accountability, I don't have a problem with shortening warning lengths. This should be obvious as Geodude and I already agreed to it weeks ago :P --GamerAim (talk) 09:10, 21 November 2018 (MST)
• Since real-time-chat is much quicker, and three months had been working already, I don't think that we need to change this. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:14, 25 November 2018 (MST)

Neutral

Actual concerns to D&D Wiki admins

I so really want to not be concerned with this whole Discord debacle whatsoever, I honestly refuse to read it for fear of being drawn in. As a person who'll always be opposed to even acknowledging the server, can I just get some assurance that none of these agreed policies/discordthings/whatevers will affect me at all? --SgtLion (talk) 10:14, 21 November 2018 (MST)

The #Cross-Accountability decision could potentially mean that an admin can warn you if they don't like something you did off of D&D Wiki. That probably won't affect you, though, because I'm sure you keep anything else you do separate from D&D Wiki, which means you'd be one of the lucky ones exempt from the gross overreach. This is the policy that has the most widespread effect, since it could grant admins authority outside of D&D Wiki in a way that is one-sided.--GamerAim (talk) 10:33, 21 November 2018 (MST)

It's not "if an admin doesn't like it," or at least it isn't as how I envision it. My intent is to hold wikians accountable for their poor interactions with other wikians specifically about what relates to this site. As far as I can tell, SgtLion, you've always behaved reasonably, so I seriously doubt you'll be affected by that policy in any meaningful way. — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 10:39, 21 November 2018 (MST)

This is what they always say. "If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about!" SgtLion has always behaved reasonably on D&D Wiki (and off), but what business is it of D&D Wiki's what he does off-site, even if it isn't reasonable? There is no context, no situation, no circumstance that makes this okay, no matter what your "intent" is. Do not forget that this whole discussion started because Varkarrus got upset that I warned her for behavior in Discord and she thought she could get back at me by fabricating misconduct and holding me accountable to it. I believe this cross-accountability policy was suggested with the intention of it being exploited, and I believe that it would be exploited.--GamerAim (talk) 11:10, 21 November 2018 (MST)

Glad to see we're taking all possible paths to increasing our pointless drama score; I really will just not acknowledge such a policy if that is decided on. Thanks for the heads up. --SgtLion (talk) 13:32, 21 November 2018 (MST)

Don't worry Sarg. None of these policies can affect those that don't engage in them so as long as you continue to refuse to engage you have my assurance. —ConcealedLight (talk) 05:46, 23 November 2018 (MST)

Is that supposed to be sarcasm? If sarcasm: Boo, go away. If not so: You're very wrong. --SgtLion (talk) 07:21, 23 November 2018 (MST)

Sorry my geuine attempt to make you feel better was had the opposite effect. I'll leave this conversation thread alone now. —ConcealedLight (talk) 07:58, 23 November 2018 (MST)

Inter-Community accountability

Separate from Universal accountability. Simply making sure that certain policies have crossover between the various aspects of the official D&D wiki community areas. Like, if you get banned by... for example, spreading hate speech on the discord, that ban should surely carry over to the wiki as well. Nip it in the bud before they use the wiki itself as a platform to spread hate, too. Varkarrus (talk) 23:53, 25 November 2018 (MST)

Discussion

Support

Chalk me up for this one. Like I said before, universal accountability is a bit extreme. But, Varkarrus (talk) 23:53, 25 November 2018 (MST)

Oppose

Neutral

Links to Social Media

As there seems to be some back and forward between editors on the page about wording and some general confusion about the linking to an unofficial server. I'd like to open up a conversation between editors to talk about this specifically. I myself don't think we should link to an externally managed third-party server when the wiki already has its own official server, the current wording disputes of the page and it being a special privilege GamerAim alone seems to have doesn't sit right with me as I don't believe anyone else on the wiki could have a link to their private discord server if they asked. —ConcealedLight (talk) 18:26, 8 December 2018 (MST)

GD already confirmed the consensus. Please read edit summaries and relevant discussion. As an administrator involved in these discussions, and one who himself agreed to what you're trying to change, you should know this. If you want to go back on consensus, we might as well remove the link to the other server and start from scratch and deliberate it for another few months before coming to a consensus again.

Alternatively, you can stick to the consensus that you voted in favor of and not go back on your word for the sake of creating more Discord drama. Just let it go, CL. Don't drag this out more than it's already been, please?--GamerAim (talk) 18:48, 8 December 2018 (MST)

I agree that the unofficial discord link shouldn't be around now that we have a perfectly serviceable official one. We should put it to a vote. Varkarrus (talk) 18:49, 8 December 2018 (MST)

There was a "vote" in the sense that you and CL both voted to keep the link around. I do not understand why keeping to your word is passe on D&D Wiki, but please try to respect other users by not turning back on the agreed-upon consensus that you agreed to. As I said, if the community really insists on turning against consensus, it's inappropriate to remove my link and keep the other one, since the consensus involved putting both up. But, of course, if you want to draw this thing out further and take us back to square one, I can't stop you.--GamerAim (talk) 19:01, 8 December 2018 (MST)

Please know that consensus can change. I don't feel strongly one way or the other about this, but we shouldn't put it to a vote unless discussion does not yield any useful consensus. — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 19:07, 8 December 2018 (MST)

Consensus can change, but we came to consensus less than a week ago. They both personally agreed that the link should stay. But now that they have what they wanted, they want to go back on the other thing they agreed to. Is this really what D&D Wiki has to be? A bunch of users pretending to agree to something, then once they get what they want, going back on their word? In the light of the revelation outlined above, I can only express how petty I find this attempt at silencing their fellow users.--GamerAim (talk) 19:11, 8 December 2018 (MST)

Where was this "consensus" reached? We never discussed it, so why are you demeaning users? Use sources, and speak honestly, but trying to shoehorn your problems into someone else's is really unacceptable. I agree that we should remove the link, since it does not represent our community. --Green Dragon (talk) 01:35, 9 December 2018 (MST)

This consensus was reached above, right after we discussed it. This is the source, as I was always honest. I also never demeaned users. I am not a person who consistently ignores consensus. Your words also don't make much sense, as I'm not shoehorning my problems into anyone else's problems.--GamerAim (talk) 05:34, 9 December 2018 (MST)

GamerAim I would appreciate it if you could not take my reply to Sgtlion's rfa and copy it word for word. It's not appropriate of an administrator to behave this way. :) ConcealedWife (talk) 03:54, 9 December 2018 (MST)

I would appreciate it if you didn't talk to me, much less tell me what's appropriate for my job or tell me what I can and can't copy and paste :) I didn't violate policy, sweetie, so please leave me alone :) --GamerAim (talk) 05:34, 9 December 2018 (MST)

The day the cesspit of drama you call a discord disappears off of this wiki will be a good day. I'm requesting an interaction ban. Do not continue to quote or otherwise belittle me. I don't believe your standing with on this wiki is good enough anymore for you to continue this pathetic behaviour. ConcealedWife (talk) 06:03, 9 December 2018 (MST)

Hey, GD, would you please warn CW for calling me pathetic? I'm not allowed to do so, as per policy, but I'm sure you'll enforce policy for me, eh? I've struck out the offending comments in the meantime :) --GamerAim (talk) 06:25, 9 December 2018 (MST)

Can bureaucrats kill threads? I want to point out GA calling CW “sweetie” demeaning. There isn’t another word I am more familiar with that creates a hierarchy between men and women. This wasn’t used as a term of endearment. They aren’t your daughter or person of affection. So, in the world of sports: I believe these penalties (GA’s and CW’s comments) off set one another. GD has heard the points about this topic. He can make a decision without this debate going further (which isn’t even a debate anymore, it’s a tit-for-tat competition now) ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 07:20, 9 December 2018 (MST)

Me being a man is conjecture. I have not once stated that I am a man. Please do not make assumptions to create irrelevant arguments against me, BSFM :) --GamerAim (talk) 08:17, 9 December 2018 (MST)

I would turn this around, and argue that you are trying to misquote CW. This is a warnable offense, but it's hard to either define it as a "misquote", "pathetic", or whatever your newest interpretation of a policy is. "Sweetie" is also very hard to define. Wikipedia's civility asks users to apologize, strike out comments, and the type of things that I have seen here. Please, read the civility page then continue your discussions so we don't need to implement any committe action at this point in time. Keep on topic. If you want to just attack users, then you will get blocked. We work constructively, and turning this into something else is not in our interests. --Green Dragon (talk) 08:20, 9 December 2018 (MST)

didn’t conjecture anyone’s gender; I pointed out the relationship of the term sweetie and it’s impact within gaming communities. Relevancy is perspective. ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 08:46, 9 December 2018 (MST)

You pointed out that me saying "sweetie" was demeaning. Then you said that it creates a hierarchy between men and women. You say its relevancy is perspective, but what perspective? Because it looks to me like the perspective is that it's demeaning because it creates a hierarchy between a man and a woman. Which I agree with, but that perspective is only relevant when assuming that this situation was one between man and woman. But maybe your train of thought makes different stops than mine...--GamerAim (talk) 08:58, 9 December 2018 (MST)

I would like to issue an apology towards the community for my offending comment. I let my emotions get the better of me. I request no further replies to my comment. ConcealedWife (talk) 10:03, 9 December 2018 (MST)

←Reverted indentation to one colon

I think everyone's train of thought makes different stops than yours, GamerAim. Any further comments off of topic will be reverted and blocking will be considered. Please, be constructive and let's discuss the topic on hand. --Green Dragon (talk) 09:07, 9 December 2018 (MST)

I would like to say that I don't feel anyone is going 'back on their word' when they have changed their opinion on the matter of keeping the original discord server. The point that should be made here is that users were okay with (not agreeing, giving their word or any other form of commitment) with a server that would function similar to the wiki. The server used to function similar to the wiki in terms of hierarchy and there was a clear set of rules. Instead, within a short period of time, the unofficial discord has undergone major changes: It is now solely run and moderated by GamerAim, with no Dyno bot with an open log to show changes that were made, no rules and no guarantee that users won't be removed based off on the emotions of the owner towards them. Furthermore, it is a 'bannable' offence to mention the official server (Granted; its not allowed to mention or promote *any* server, but I believe an exception should be made here.) and I think that shows bad faith towards the spirit of the wiki itself. A huge thanks to (BigShotFancyMan) for helping me put my thoughts into words. ConcealedWife (talk) 09:34, 9 December 2018 (MST)

If this is the case, then I agree that we don't need to support a link to this server. If there are other opinions, we should hear them. --Green Dragon (talk) 08:54, 14 December 2018 (MST)

I agree with Green Dragon. — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 10:16, 14 December 2018 (MST)

Based on history and hypotheticals (users visiting unofficial servers being treated less than ideally and would continue to be so), I think it best if anyone with their own social media outlets keep it on their userpages. In which case, the original, the one and [use-to-be] only, D&D Wiki Tavern hosted by our very own GamerAim, I think should not be listed for the wiki's social media page. ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 10:43, 14 December 2018 (MST)

As do I. —ConcealedLight (talk) 10:48, 15 December 2018 (MST)

I agree. --Kydo (talk) 19:57, 15 December 2018 (MST)

Same here. Varkarrus (talk) 22:16, 15 December 2018 (MST)

Seems pretty obvious that we have now reached consensus on this topic. The link should be removed. --Green Dragon (talk) 05:25, 16 December 2018 (MST)

Vote to Remove the unofficial discord link

Due to a combination of two factors, 1) there is now an official discord server, and 2) the unofficial one has had a massive restructuring taking it very far away from the core tenets of the D&D Wiki community, I and several others believe it is now appropriate to remove the link to the unofficial discord server. Varkarrus (talk) 09:38, 9 December 2018 (MST)

Again, why are we firstly putting this to a vote? This is why I said that we need to stay on topic in the discussion above. --Green Dragon (talk) 10:57, 9 December 2018 (MST)

Was I correct to assume that we restart the discussion below your indentation? ConcealedWife (talk) 11:08, 9 December 2018 (MST)

1/0/0

Discussion

• I'm going to abstain from voting for the time being; as I said above, currently I don't think putting this to a vote is appropriate at this time. We should only use voting when discussion does not yield any useful consensus, and from my point of view, discussion has not concluded. — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 09:45, 9 December 2018 (MST)

You are correct, my apologies. I will cross out my vote for now. ConcealedWife (talk) 09:53, 9 December 2018 (MST)

Support

• Signed. Varkarrus (talk) 09:38, 9 December 2018 (MST)

• With the way the server is run right now, I cannot find any justification for keeping it around on the wiki.ConcealedWife (talk) 09:42, 9 December 2018 (MST)

Oppose

• I believe in following consensus and am a user who refuses to use the "official" Discord server. Other D&D Wiki users still use mine. It's still a D&D Wiki Discord server. The fact that users are running multiple votes and discussions over this link in such a short span of time (view above threads) seems to me to violate the spirit of D&D Wiki. I don't think users should be encouraged to undermine consensus and recent votes just because they changed their minds, or because they already got what they wanted. I think this sets a bad precedent and doesn't seem conducive to long-term stability on D&D Wiki. I also think that Vark has, like before, jumped the gun on a vote. D&D Wiki isn't a democracy, and you can't just play the popular vote any time you don't get your way. That isn't the spirit of D&D Wiki.--GamerAim (talk) 09:52, 9 December 2018 (MST)

Neutral

YouTube Project

OK, so my life is back in order and I'm ready to get into the swing of things again. I have a friend and we're working on doing sort of an animated podcast style thing of our live gaming sessions. The first shot was... rough. But we're working on it. I was also thinking about doing in-depth technical game design reviews of wiki material, philosophical discussions on D&D, and more. Would this be the kind of content people would be interested in seeing coming from wiki members? Are there any other wikians with a camera who would like to get involved? --Kydo (talk) 20:38, 13 December 2018 (MST)

I’m interested in seeing this content and have wished to do it myself. I think it’s be a lot of fun to help/participate in whatever y’all drum up! ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 21:46, 13 December 2018 (MST)